To understand healthcare workers’ (HCWs) beliefs and practices toward blood culture (BCx) use.

Cross-sectional electronic survey and semi-structured interviews.

Academic hospitals in the United States.

HCWs involved in BCx ordering and collection in adult intensive care units (ICU) and wards.

We administered an anonymous electronic survey to HCWs and conducted semi-structured interviews with unit staff and quality improvement (QI) leaders in these institutions to understand their perspectives regarding BCx stewardship between February and November 2023.

Of 314 HCWs who responded to the survey, most (67.4%) were physicians and were involved in BCx ordering (82.3%). Most survey respondents reported that clinicians had a low threshold to culture patients for fever (84.4%) and agreed they could safely reduce the number of BCx obtained in their units (65%). However, only half of them believed BCx was overused. Although most made BCx decisions as a team (74.1%), a minority reported these team discussions occurred daily (42.4%). A third of respondents reported not usually collecting the correct volume per BCx bottle, half were unaware of the improved sensitivity of 2 BCx sets, and most were unsure of the nationally recommended BCx contamination threshold (87.5%). Knowledge regarding the utility of BCx for common infections was limited.

HCWs’ understanding of best collection practices and yield of BCx was limited.

COVID-19 changed the epidemiology of community-acquired respiratory viruses. We explored patterns of respiratory viral testing to understand which tests are most clinically useful in the postpandemic era.

We conducted a retrospective observational study of discharge data from PINC-AI (formerly Premier), a large administrative database. Use of multiplex nucleic acid amplification respiratory panels in acute care, including small (2–5 targets), medium (6–11), and large panels (>11), were compared between the early pandemic (03/2020–10/2020), late pandemic (11/2020–4/2021), and prepandemic respiratory season (11/2019 - 02/2020) using ANOVA.

A median of 160.5 facilities contributed testing data per quarter (IQR 155.5–169.5). Prepandemic, facilities averaged 103 respiratory panels monthly (sd 138), including 79 large (sd 126), 7 medium (sd 31), and 16 small panels (sd 73). Relative to prepandemic, utilization decreased during the early pandemic (62 panels monthly/facility; sd 112) but returned to the prepandemic baseline by the late pandemic (107 panels monthly/facility; sd 211). Relative to prepandemic, late pandemic testing involved more small panel use (58 monthly/facility, sd 156) and less large panel use (47 monthly/facility, sd 116). Comparisons among periods demonstrated significant differences in overall testing (P < 0.0001), large panel use (P < 0.0001), and small panel use (P < 0.0001).

Postpandemic, clinical use of respiratory panel testing shifted from predominantly large panels to predominantly small panels. Factors driving this change may include resource availability, costs, and the clinical utility of targeting important pathogenic viruses instead of testing “for everything.”

Transient acquisition of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) on healthcare personnel (HCP) gloves and gowns following patient care has been examined. However, the potential for transmission to the subsequent patient has not been studied. We explored the frequency of MRSA transmission from patient to HCP, and then in separate encounters from contaminated HCP gloves and gowns to a subsequent simulated patient as well as the factors associated with these 2 transmission pathways.

We conducted a prospective cohort study with 2 parts. In objective 1, we studied MRSA transmission from random MRSA-positive patients to HCP gloves and gowns after specific routine patient care activities. In objective 2, we simulated subsequent transmission from random HCP gloves and gowns without hand hygiene to the next patient using a manikin proxy.

For the first objective, among 98 MRSA-positive patients with 333 randomly selected individual patient–HCP interactions, HCP gloves or gowns were contaminated in 54 interactions (16.2%). In a multivariable analysis, performing endotracheal tube care had the greatest odds of glove or gown contamination (OR, 4.06; 95% CI, 1.3–12.6 relative to physical examination). For the second objective, after 147 simulated HCP–patient interactions, the subsequent transmission of MRSA to the manikin proxy occurred 15 times (10.2%).

After caring for a patient with MRSA, contamination of HCP gloves and gown and transmission to subsequent patients following HCP-patient interactions occurs frequently if contact precautions are not used. Proper infection control practices, including the use of gloves and gown, can prevent this potential subsequent transmission.

The gold standard for hand hygiene (HH) while wearing gloves requires removing gloves, performing HH, and donning new gloves between WHO moments. The novel strategy of applying alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) directly to gloved hands might be effective and efficient.

A mixed-method, multicenter, 3-arm, randomized trial.

Adult and pediatric medical-surgical, intermediate, and intensive care units at 4 hospitals.

Healthcare personnel (HCP).

HCP were randomized to 3 groups: ABHR applied directly to gloved hands, the current standard, or usual care.

Gloved hands were sampled via direct imprint. Gold-standard and usual-care arms were compared with the ABHR intervention.

Bacteria were identified on gloved hands after 432 (67.4%) of 641 observations in the gold-standard arm versus 548 (82.8%) of 662 observations in the intervention arm (P < .01). HH required a mean of 14 seconds in the intervention and a mean of 28.7 seconds in the gold-standard arm (P < .01). Bacteria were identified on gloved hands after 133 (98.5%) of 135 observations in the usual-care arm versus 173 (76.6%) of 226 observations in the intervention arm (P < .01). Of 331 gloves tested 6 (1.8%) were found to have microperforations; all were identified in the intervention arm [6 (2.9%) of 205].

Compared with usual care, contamination of gloved hands was significantly reduced by applying ABHR directly to gloved hands but statistically higher than the gold standard. Given time savings and microbiological benefit over usual care and lack of feasibility of adhering to the gold standard, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization should consider advising HCP to decontaminate gloved hands with ABHR when HH moments arise during single-patient encounters.

Trial Registration: NCT03445676.

To evaluate the efficacy of a new continuously active disinfectant (CAD) to decrease bioburden on high-touch environmental surfaces compared to a standard disinfectant in the intensive care unit.

A single-blind randomized controlled trial with 1:1 allocation.

Medical intensive care unit (MICU) at an urban tertiary-care hospital.

Adult patients admitted to the MICU and on contact precautions.

A new CAD wipe used for daily cleaning.

Samples were collected from 5 high-touch environmental surfaces before cleaning and at 1, 4, and 24 hours after cleaning. The primary outcome was the mean bioburden 24 hours after cleaning. The secondary outcome was the detection of any epidemiologically important pathogen (EIP) 24 hours after cleaning.

In total, 843 environmental samples were collected from 43 unique patient rooms. At 24 hours, the mean bioburden recovered from the patient rooms cleaned with the new CAD wipe (intervention) was 52 CFU/mL, and the mean bioburden was 92 CFU/mL in the rooms cleaned the standard disinfectant (control). After log transformation for multivariable analysis, the mean difference in bioburden between the intervention and control arm was −0.59 (95% CI, −1.45 to 0.27). The odds of EIP detection were 14% lower in the rooms cleaned with the CAD wipe (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.31–2.32).

The bacterial bioburden and odds of detection of EIPs were not statistically different in rooms cleaned with the CAD compared to the standard disinfectant after 24 hours. Although CAD technology appears promising in vitro, larger studies may be warranted to evaluate efficacy in clinical settings.

Multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) respiratory panels are rapid, highly sensitive tests for viral and bacterial pathogens that cause respiratory infections. In this study, we (1) described best practices in the implementation of respiratory panels based on expert perspectives and (2) identified tools for diagnostic stewardship to enhance the usefulness of testing.

We conducted a survey of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America Research Network to explore current and future approaches to diagnostic stewardship of multiplex PCR respiratory panels.

In total, 41 sites completed the survey (response rate, 50%). Multiplex PCR respiratory panels were perceived as supporting accurate diagnoses at 35 sites (85%), supporting more efficient patient care at 33 sites (80%), and improving patient outcomes at 23 sites (56%). Thirteen sites (32%) reported that testing may support diagnosis or patient care without improving patient outcomes. Furthermore, 24 sites (58%) had implemented diagnostic stewardship, with a median of 3 interventions (interquartile range, 1–4) per site. The interventions most frequently reported as effective were structured order sets to guide test ordering (4 sites), restrictions on test ordering based on clinician or patient characteristics (3 sites), and structured communication of results (2 sites). Education was reported as “helpful” but with limitations (3 sites).

Many hospital epidemiologists and experts in infectious diseases perceive multiplex PCR respiratory panels as useful tests that can improve diagnosis, patient care, and patient outcomes. However, institutions frequently employ diagnostic stewardship to enhance the usefulness of testing, including most commonly clinical decision support to guide test ordering.

Hospital readmission is unsettling to patients and caregivers, costly to the healthcare system, and may leave patients at additional risk for hospital-acquired infections and other complications. We evaluated the association between comorbidities present during index coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hospitalization and the risk of 30-day readmission.

We used the Premier Healthcare database to perform a retrospective cohort study of COVID-19 hospitalized patients discharged between April 2020 and March 2021 who were followed for 30 days after discharge to capture readmission to the same hospital.

Among the 331,136 unique patients in the index cohort, 36,827 (11.1%) had at least 1 all-cause readmission within 30 days. Of the readmitted patients, 11,382 (3.4%) were readmitted with COVID-19 as the primary diagnosis. In the multivariable model adjusted for demographics, hospital characteristics, coexisting comorbidities, and COVID-19 severity, each additional comorbidity category was associated with an 18% increase in the odds of all-cause readmission (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.17–1.19) and a 10% increase in the odds of readmission with COVID-19 as the primary readmission diagnosis (aOR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.09–1.11). Lymphoma (aOR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.58–2.19), renal failure (aOR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.25–1.40), and chronic lung disease (aOR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.24–1.34) were most associated with readmission for COVID-19.

Readmission within 30 days was common among COVID-19 survivors. A better understanding of comorbidities associated with readmission will aid hospital care teams in improving postdischarge care. Additionally, it will assist hospital epidemiologists and quality administrators in planning resources, allocating staff, and managing bed-flow issues to improve patient care and safety.

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a significant nosocomial pathogen in the ICU. MRSA contamination of healthcare personnel (HCP) gloves and gowns after providing care to patients with MRSA occurs at a rate of 14%–16% in the ICU setting. Little is known about whether the MRSA isolates identified on HCP gown and gloves following patient care activities are the same as MRSA isolates identified as colonizing or infecting the patient.

From a multisite cohort of 388 independent patient MRSA isolates and their corresponding HCP gown and glove isolates, we selected 91 isolates pairs using a probability to proportion size (PPS) sampling method. To determine whether the patient and HCP gown or gloves isolates were genetically similar, we used 5 comparative genomic typing methods: phylogenetic analysis, spa typing, multilocus sequence typing (MLST), large-scale BLAST score ratio (LSBSR), and single-nucleotide variant (SNV) analysis.

We identified that 56 (61.5%) of isolate pairs were genetically similar at least by 4 of the methods. Comparably, the spa typing and the LSBSR analyses revealed that >75% of the examined isolate pairs were concordant, with the thresholds established for each analysis.

Many of the patient MRSA isolates were genetically similar to those on the HCP gown or gloves following a patient care activity. This finding indicates that the patient is often the primary source of the MRSA isolates transmitted to the HCP, which can potentially be spread to other patients or hospital settings through HCP vectors. These results have important implications because they provide additional evidence for hospitals considering ending the use of contact precautions (gloves and gowns) for MRSA patients.

To determine the utility of the Sofia SARS rapid antigen fluorescent immunoassay (FIA) to guide hospital-bed placement of patients being admitted through the emergency department (ED).

Cross-sectional analysis of a clinical quality improvement study.

This study was conducted in 2 community hospitals in Maryland from September 21, 2020, to December 3, 2020. In total, 2,887 patients simultaneously received the Sofia SARS rapid antigen FIA and SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assays on admission through the ED.

Rapid antigen results and symptom assessment guided initial patient placement while confirmatory RT-PCR was pending. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values of the rapid antigen assay were calculated relative to RT-PCR, overall and separately for symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. Assay sensitivity was compared to RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values. Assay turnaround times were compared. Clinical characteristics of RT-PCR–positive patients and potential exposures from false-negative antigen assays were evaluated.

For all patients, overall agreement was 97.9%; sensitivity was 76.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 71%–82%), and specificity was 99.7% (95% CI, 99%–100%). We detected no differences in performance between asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals. As RT-PCR Ct increased, the sensitivity of the antigen assay decreased. The mean turnaround time for the antigen assay was 1.2 hours (95% CI, 1.0–1.3) and for RT-PCR it was 20.1 hours (95% CI, 18.9–40.3) (P < .001). No transmission from antigen-negative/RT-PCR–positive patients was identified.

Although not a replacement for RT-PCR for detection of all SARS-CoV-2 infections, the Sofia SARS antigen FIA has clinical utility for potential initial timely patient placement.

To test the feasibility of targeted gown and glove use by healthcare personnel caring for high-risk nursing-home residents to prevent Staphylococcus aureus acquisition in short-stay residents.

Uncontrolled clinical trial.

This study was conducted in 2 community-based nursing homes in Maryland.

The study included 322 residents on mixed short- and long-stay units.

During a 2-month baseline period, all residents had nose and inguinal fold swabs taken to estimate S. aureus acquisition. The intervention was iteratively developed using a participatory human factors engineering approach. During a 2-month intervention period, healthcare personnel wore gowns and gloves for high-risk care activities while caring for residents with wounds or medical devices, and S. aureus acquisition was measured again. Whole-genome sequencing was used to assess whether the acquisition represented resident-to-resident transmission.

Among short-stay residents, the methicillin-resistant S. aureus acquisition rate decreased from 11.9% during the baseline period to 3.6% during the intervention period (odds ratio [OR], 0.28; 95% CI, 0.08–0.92; P = .026). The methicillin-susceptible S. aureus acquisition rate went from 9.1% during the baseline period to 4.0% during the intervention period (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.12–1.42; P = .15). The S. aureus resident-to-resident transmission rate decreased from 5.9% during the baseline period to 0.8% during the intervention period.

Targeted gown and glove use by healthcare personnel for high-risk care activities while caring for residents with wounds or medical devices, regardless of their S. aureus colonization status, is feasible and potentially decreases S. aureus acquisition and transmission in short-stay community-based nursing-home residents.

To evaluate the effect of the burden of Staphylococcus aureus colonization of nursing home residents on the risk of S. aureus transmission to healthcare worker (HCW) gowns and gloves.

Multicenter prospective cohort study.

Residents and HCWs from 13 community-based nursing homes in Maryland and Michigan.

Residents were cultured for S. aureus at the anterior nares and perianal skin. The S. aureus burden was estimated by quantitative polymerase chain reaction detecting the nuc gene. HCWs wore gowns and gloves during usual care activities; gowns and gloves were swabbed and then cultured for the presence of S. aureus.

In total, 403 residents were enrolled; 169 were colonized with methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) or methicillin-sensitive S. aureus (MSSA) and comprised the study population; 232 were not colonized and thus were excluded from this analysis; and 2 were withdrawn prior to being swabbed. After multivariable analysis, perianal colonization with S. aureus conferred the greatest odds for transmission to HCW gowns and gloves, and the odds increased with increasing burden of colonization: adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 2.1 (95% CI, 1.3–3.5) for low-level colonization and aOR 5.2 (95% CI, 3.1–8.7) for high level colonization.

Among nursing home patients colonized with S. aureus, the risk of transmission to HCW gowns and gloves was greater from those colonized with greater quantities of S. aureus on the perianal skin. Our findings inform future infection control practices for both MRSA and MSSA in nursing homes.

To estimate the risk of transmission of antibiotic-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (RGNB) to gowns and gloves worn by healthcare personnel (HCP) when providing care to residents of community-based nursing facilities to identify the types of care and resident characteristics associated with transmission.

Prospective observational study.

Residents and HCP from 13 community-based nursing facilities in Maryland and Michigan.

Perianal swabs were collected from residents and cultured to detect RGNB. HCP wore gowns and gloves during usual care activities, and at the end of each interaction, these were swabbed in a standardized manner. Transmission of RGNB from a colonized resident to gowns and gloves was estimated. Odds ratios (ORs) of transmission associated with type of care or resident characteristic were calculated.

We enrolled 403 residents and their HCP in this study. Overall, 19% of enrolled residents with a perianal swab (n=399) were colonized with at least 1 RGNB. RGNB transmission to either gloves or gowns occurred during 11% of the 584 interactions. Showering the resident, hygiene or toilet assistance, and wound dressing changes were associated with a high risk of transmission. Glucose monitoring and assistance with feeding or medication were associated with a low risk of transmission. Residents with a pressure ulcer were 3 times more likely to transmit RGNB than residents without one (OR, 3.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0–11.1).

Gown and glove use in community nursing facilities should be prioritized for certain residents and care interactions that are deemed a high risk for transmission.