A major tenet of healthcare environmental cleaning focuses on high-touch surfaces (HTSs). HTSs have high rates of contamination, yet cleaning compliance remains low, particularly in patient-occupied rooms. This quality improvement study aimed to use human-centric and participatory design to modify an HTS cleaning checklist and conduct initial trial and evaluation.

Background: Povidone-iodine and chlorhexidine gluconate are commonly used antiseptics that have broad antiviral properties, including against SARS-CoV-2. Nasal and oral antisepsis is a possible option to reduce viral transmission; however, effectiveness data are limited. The acceptability of this method for adjunct infection control is also unknown. We are conducting a clinical randomized controlled trial (NCT04478019) to evaluate the effectiveness and feasibility of nasal and oral antisepsis to prevent COVID-19. Methods: Healthcare and other essential workers with in-person job duties were recruited into a 10-week clinical trial. Participation did not require in-person activities: all communication was web- or telephone-based, supplies were shipped directly to the participant, and participants self-collected specimens. Participants completed a 3-week intervention and 3-week control phases and were randomized to the timing of these phases (Fig. 1). During the 3-week intervention phase, participants applied povidone-iodine nasal swabs 2 times per day and chlorhexidine gluconate oral rinse 4 times per day following the manufacturers’ instructions for use. Participants continued all usual infection control measures (eg, face masks, eye protection, gowns, hand hygiene) as required by their workplace. To measure effectiveness against viral transmission, participants collected midturbinate nasal swabs 3 times per week to measure SARS-CoV-2 viral load. Participants also self-reported COVID-19 tests they received and why (eg, symptoms or exposure). To assess acceptability, participants completed pre- and post-surveys about their perceived and actual experience with the interventions. Participants also self-reported adverse effects due to the intervention. Results: As of December 3, 2021, 221 participants (148 healthcare workers and 73 non–healthcare essential workers) had enrolled. Moreover, 20 adverse effects have been reported, including skin irritation, epistaxis, and mouth discoloration; 9 participants withdrew due to side effects. Laboratory analyses are ongoing to measure effectiveness in reducing SARS-CoV-2 viral load. We performed an interim analysis of intervention acceptability. Survey responses were given on a Likert scale of 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). Although 36% of respondents (n = 74) reported on the postsurvey that the intervention was less acceptable than they had expected on the presurvey, the overall acceptability measure was still relatively high (3.76) (Fig. 2). In addition, 76% of respondents reported that they would use the intervention in the future (n = 56). Conclusions: Participant recruitment is ongoing, and data continue to be collected to analyze effectiveness and feasibility. Preliminary data suggest that participants find the nasal and oral antisepsis intervention to be an acceptable option to complement standard infection control methods to prevent COVID-19.

Funding: Professional Disposables International, Healthcare Division (PDIHC)

Disclosures: None

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid mandated that nursing homes implement antibiotic stewardship programs (ASPs) by November 2017. We conducted surveys of Wisconsin nursing-home stewardship practices before and after this mandate. Our comparison of these surveys shows an overall increase in ASP implementation efforts, but it also highlights areas for further improvement.

Background: Contaminated surfaces in healthcare settings contribute to the transmission of pathogens. Environmental cleaning and disinfection are important for preventing pathogen transmission and reducing healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). Hospital cleanliness plays a large role in patient perception of the healthcare setting and, consequently, of patient satisfaction. However, patient perceptions of environmental cleaning remain unclear. To engage patients as part of achieving patient-centered care, we undertook a qualitative study to examine patient perspectives on environmental cleaning and disinfection in healthcare settings. Methods: We conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with 14 hospitalized patients at a large midwestern Veterans’ Administration hospital. Interviews were audio recorded, professionally transcribed verbatim, summarized in a “key domains” template developed by the research team, then coded for emerging themes. Results: Patients reported feeling satisfied with hospital cleanliness and especially the daily cleaning they observed while hospitalized. Cleaning activities highlighted included mopping and disinfecting high-touch surfaces, bathrooms, and floors. Despite this overall positive response, some patients expressed worries of being “in the way” or burdensome if they were in their rooms while staff were cleaning. One interviewee stated, “It’s easier for them if there isn’t a patient in [the room] … it’s hard to do any endeavor when you’ve got a complete stranger watching you.” Patients also acknowledged the importance of careful cleaning, especially during the COVID-19 crisis; “It’s got to be something you take seriously, especially during this pandemic.” Some patients spoke of the relationship which can develop between environmental services staff during daily hospital room cleaning. Conclusions: Patient perceptions of environmental cleaning are important to understand and incorporate into clinical practice. Overall, patients felt that their environments were clean, and they expressed confidence in the staff’s work. Interviewees additionally spoke of their own self-efficacy, saying they try to clean up after themselves and would feel comfortable speaking up if something needed to be cleaned. However, some patients acknowledged feeling burdensome to the environmental services staff if patients were present in rooms while staff cleaned. Cleaning activities may become more patient-centric if they are better planned (eg, while patient is out of the room) or based on patient preferences on time of day.

Funding: No

Disclosures: None

Background: Environmental cleaning is important in the interruption of pathogen transmission and subsequent infection. Although recent initiatives have targeted cleaning of high-touch surfaces and incorporated audit-and-feedback monitoring of cleaning practices, practice variations exist and compliance is still reportedly low. Evaluation of human factors influencing variations in cleaning practices can be valuable in developing interventions, leading to standardized practices and improved compliance. We conducted a work system analysis using a human-factors engineering framework [the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) model] to identify barriers and facilitators to current environmental cleaning practices within Veterans’ Affairs hospitals. Methods: We conducted semistructured interviews with key stakeholders (ie, environmental staff, nursing, and infection preventionists) at 3 VA facilities across acute-care and long-term care settings. Interviews were conducted among 18 healthcare workers, audio recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analyzed for thematic content within the SEIPS constructs (ie, person, environment, organization, tasks, and tools). Results: Within the SEIPS domain ‘person,’ we found that many environment service (EVS) staff were veterans and were highly motivated to serve fellow veterans, especially to prevent them from acquiring infections. However, the hiring of service members as EVS staff comes with significant hurdles that affect staffing. Within the domain of ‘environment’, EVS staff reported rooms that were either occupied by the patient or were multibed, were more difficult to clean. Conversely, they reported that it was easier to clean in settings where the patient was more likely to be out of bed (eg, long-term care residents). Patient flow and/or movement greatly influenced workload within the ‘organizational’ domain. Workload also changed by patient population and setting (eg, the longer the stay or more critical the patient), increased their workload. EVS staff felt that staffing consistency and experience improved cleaning practices. Within the ‘task’ domain, EVS staff were motivated for cleaning high-touch surfaces; however, knowledge of these surfaces varied. Finally, within the ‘tool’ domain, most EVS staff described having effective cleaning products; however, sometimes in limited supply. Most sites reported some form of monitoring of their cleaning process; however, there was variation in type and frequency. Conclusions: Human-factors analysis identified barriers to and facilitators of cleaning compliance. Incorporating environmental cleaning practices that address barriers and facilitators identified may facilitate standardized cleaning of environmental surfaces. Standardized procedures for cleaning multibed rooms and environmental surfaces surrounding occupied beds may improve cleaning compliance. Future research should evaluate standardized cleaning procedures or bundles that incorporate these best practices and steps to overcoming barriers and pilot feasibility.

Funding: No

Disclosures: None

This study aims to explore the health literacy needs of South Asian men with diabetes to generate scoping data to inform culturally appropriate interventions with this group. Health literacy levels were measured using the TOFHLA-UK (n=45) and supplemented by semi-structured interviews with healthcare providers (n=12). Data suggest that the majority of participants from this cohort tend to have marginal to inadequate health literacy levels. A generational gap was also found. Although language is a common barrier, low literacy confounds this issue since some patients are unable to read even in their own language. Thus health communication and care plans need to be simplified to match current health literacy levels of South Asian men with diabetes. Interventions need to work around cultural norms and collaborate with community members. Research and interventions that consider the needs of older generations of South Asian people with diabetes are also needed.