We evaluated whether universal chlorhexidine bathing (decolonization) with or without COVID-19 intensive training impacted COVID-19 rates in 63 nursing homes (NHs) during the 2020–2021 Fall/Winter surge. Decolonization was associated with a 43% lesser rise in staff case-rates (P < .001) and a 52% lesser rise in resident case-rates (P < .001) versus control.

We evaluated the effectiveness and tolerability of brivaracetam (BRV), an adjunctive antiseizure medication, as a treatment for focal epilepsy in adults. In this prospective study, we enrolled 51 participants from 3 sites across Canada. At 6 months, 68% (26/38) of participants were still taking BRV, among whom 35% (8/23) attained seizure freedom and 48% (11/23) saw their seizure frequency reduced by over 50%. We did not measure any significant change in irritability, quality of life, depression, and anxiety while treated with BRV. Our findings suggest BRV is effective in reducing seizure frequency among adults with focal epilepsy.

Background: Existing training for resident bathing in nursing homes (NHs) is brief and limited, likely because bathing is assumed to be intuitive. However, residents have complex skin issues, devices, dressings, and limited ability for self-care. We sought to assess bathing quality and to identify barriers to proper bathing techniques. Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study of bathing in 8 NHs in Orange County, California, involving a convenience sample of observed bed baths and showers conducted for quality improvement. NH staff were told that observation was occurring, and no feedback was given during or after bathing. Survey elements included cleansing of 6 specific body sites and adherence to bathing procedures (11 for bed baths and 17 for showers). Surveys also included queries to staff to further assess knowledge and perceived barriers. Observed lapses were documented, along with observer-determined reasons for noncompliance (ie, training issue, time pressure, facility issue (insufficient water temperature), resident refusal/behavior). Frequency of noncompliance with each element was tabulated for bed-baths and showers separately. Reasons for failure were displayed graphically. Results: In total, 50 bed baths (NH range, 5–8) and 50 showers (NH range, 4–7) were observed across 8 NHs. Lapses in bathing quality and process were extremely common for both bed baths and showers (Fig.). Inadequate body cleansing occurred for all observed body sites (88%–100% failure for bed baths, 58%–100% failure for showers). Most body areas were either skipped or sprayed with water without soaping. Procedural failures were high for both bed baths and showers (insufficient lather: 100% for bed bath and 40% for shower) lack of firm massage for cleaning (94% for bed bath and 90% for shower), failure to change wipes or cloths when dirty (100% for bed bath and 96% for shower), failure to follow clean-to-dirty sequence (100% for bed bath and 96% shower). In addition, failing to wrap or unwrap devices (73%) and failing to towel dry (94%) were common after showering. Reasons for failure were largely based on training or facility shortcomings (eg, insufficient hot water, inflexible showerhead attachment). Also, 86% of residents complained of being cold. Timing constraints and resident combativeness or refusal were rare. Staff-to-staff bathing advice most commonly involved competing for the “better shower” and “bathing early to get hot water.” Conclusions: Knowing how to appropriately bathe NH residents is not intuitive, and current training is brief and insufficient for high-quality resident care. Unacceptably high failures in proper bathing techniques in NHs necessitate re-evaluation of formal training and standardized practices to better cleanse residents. Moreover, common failures in facility processes for ensuring adequate water temperature and showerhead mobility for bathing or showering should be addressed.

Disclosures: None

Background: Recognizing problematic central-line insertion sites is an important activity for CNAs, LVNs, and RNs in nursing homes (NHs). Although CNAs are not responsible for assessing central lines, they are often the first line of defense for noticing and relaying problems with a line because of the greater amount of time they spend with residents. We sought to assess how well CNAs, LVNs, and RNs could identify problematic insertion sites in NHs. Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study of central-line care in 8 NHs in Orange County, California. A convenience sample of central lines with a range of problematic elements was selected for quality improvement purposes. Research staff used standardized observation forms to evaluate presence of redness, cloudy drainage, and dressing integrity and change date. NH CNAs, LVNs, and RNs were asked to directly observe devices and to comment on problems or concerns. Participants were also asked open-ended questions about elements for a “picture-perfect line” and standard frequency of line checks and dressing changes. Failures to recognize existing problematic elements were tabulated for CNAs and LVNs or RNs separately. Results: In total, 50 CNAs (nursing home range, 3–6) and 50 LVNs and RNs (NH range, 4–6) directly observed lines with 131 problematic elements, including redness (N = 36), cloudy drainage (N = 30), peeling dressings (N = 29), and inappropriately dated dressing (N = 36). Failure to identify problematic elements involved redness [CNAs (50%) and LVNs or RNs (53%)], cloudy drainage [CNAs (40%) and LVNs or RNs (39%)], peeling dressings [CNAs (100%) and LVNs or RNs (87%)], and inappropriately dated dressing [CNAs (71%) and LVNs or RNs (68%)]. For both CNAs and LVNs and RNs, recognition of redness and cloudy drainage improved with severity. Failure to recognize minimal erythema [CNAs (83%) and LVNs or RNs (58%)] was higher than substantial erythema [CNAs (54%) and LVNs or RNs (50%)]. Similarly, failure to recognize minimal cloudy drainage [(CNAs (67%) and LVNs or RNs (50%)] was higher than substantial cloudy drainage [CNAs (42%) and LVNs or RNs (36%)]. Overall, identification of problematic elements did not vary by whether the staff member was assigned to care for that resident. Descriptions of “picture-perfect lines” were uniformly poor, with respondents not knowing what elements to mention. Conclusions: Failure to recognize redness, cloudy drainage, peeling dressings, and lapses in dressing change dates was common for CNAs and LVNs and RNs in nursing homes. This lack of recognition could prevent proper response to early and late signs of localized infection at central-line sites. Dedicated training regarding key elements of a “picture-perfect line” is needed, including changing the threshold for concern for both small and large amounts of redness and pus.

Disclosures: None

Standardized observation of bed baths and showers for 100 residents in 8 nursing homes revealed inadequate cleansing of body sites (88%–100% failure) and >90% process failure involving lather, firm massage, changing dirty wipes or cloths, and following clean-to-dirty sequence. Insufficient water warmth affected 86% of bathing opportunities. Bathing training and adequate resources are needed.