Background: Inequities in healthcare-associated infections (HAI) incidence and prevention measures are critically important to understand (Chen,2021). While evaluations are beginning to characterize these disparities by infection type (Gettler, 2023), our work expands this by characterizing disparities by prevention strategies. By better understanding how evidence-based prevention strategies are implemented at the patient level, infection preventionists and hospital epidemiologists can better design strategies that provide equitable care to all patients. Methods: Beginning January 2023, gender, race, ethnicity, spoken language, and age group fields were added to daily chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) treatment and C. difficile test order compliance data captured via electronic medical record. In July 2023, fields on recorded race, ethnicity, and gender were added to well-established foley and vascular access real-time peer audit tools that are used by infection preventionists (IPs). Each prevention strategy variable was summarized by demographic variables and differences in compliance were measured using chi-square tests. Results: 899 vascular audits and 420 foley audits were completed by IPs between July – December 2023. In 2023, there were 114,066 opportunities for CHG Treatment and 1,991 C. difficile test orders. Missing data varied by metric but ranged from 0-60%. Statistically significant differences by race were found in 3 of 8 components (i.e., intact seal, secured catheter and absence of dependent loop) in the foley audit (p < 0 .01) and compliance with C. difficile test ordering (p < 0 .01). No differences in race were found in vascular access audits or CHG treatment. No differences in gender or ethnicity were noted in foley, vascular access audits, CHG treatment compliance, or C. difficile testing. Differences in gender and age were found in CHG treatment compliance (p < 0 .001). Conclusions: By focusing more on patient level process measures rather than only presenting stratified outcomes data, we can identify targeted opportunities for improvement in health equity before our patients develop an HAI. Further evaluations should also focus on assessing the clinical relevance of statistical findings to better inform intervention strategies. Separately, efforts are needed to improve completeness and integrity of demographic data in the electronic medical record.

Background: The National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) provides detailed surveillance case definitions for healthcare-associated infections (HAI), including central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI). CLABSI data are used for several purposes, including improving patient safety, value-based purchasing, and comparing hospitals’ performance. Our Infection Prevention (IP) team conducts house-wide HAI surveillance. To ensure that our hospital CLABSI reporting is accurate and that staff are implementing case definitions consistently and systematically, we conducted an internal validation of CLABSI. This undertaking allowed us to identify educational opportunities for IPs and improve surveillance data consistency. Methods: At UNC Hospitals, data on all positive blood cultures collected in the inpatient setting from July 2022 – June 2023 were obtained from electronic medical records. A random number generator was used to select 16 records per quarter. Each record was then randomly assigned to two different IPs (out of 8 total inpatient IPs) for review. Concordance of CLABSI classification was summarized across the two reviews and compared to the initial review. Discordant cases were then reviewed by the Associate IP Director (a certified IP with 15 years of experience) for final adjudication. A summary of findings and discordant cases details were discussed at regular IP educational meetings. Results: From July 2022-June 2023, there were 1658 positive blood cultures collected in the inpatient setting. Of the 64 randomly selected blood cultures, total concordance amongst all reviewers occurred 65.6% of the time. Concordance improved in the 2nd half of FY23 compared to the 1st half (72% vs, 59%, p>0.05). Amongst the 33% of blood culture results with reviewer discrepancy, the most common reasons were related to distinction of a bloodstream infection secondary to another infection site (32%) and application of the repeat infection timeframe (18%). Importantly, there was only one instance where a blood culture result was categorized by all 3 reviewers as present on admission, but upon Associate Director review, actually represented a CLABSI (i.e., false negative). Conclusions: Standardized case definitions remain open to interpretation. At our hospital, we experienced discordance in approximately one-third of instances during review of blood culture data amongst trained infection preventionists. Reviewing all blood culture data is key for validation so that both false positives and false negative CLABSIs can be identified. Identifying the most common reasons for discordance and using specific examples when case disagreement occurred for educational purposes may lead to improved reliability and accuracy of application of the NHSN surveillance defintions.

Background: Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is a serious healthcare-associated infection responsible for >12,000 US deaths annually. Overtesting can lead to antibiotic overuse and potential patient harm when patients are colonized with C. difficile, but not infected, yet treated. National guidelines recommend when testing is appropriate; occasionally, guideline-noncompliant testing (GNCT) may be warranted. A multidisciplinary group at UNC Medical Center (UNCMC) including the antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) used a best-practice alert in 2020 to improve diagnostic stewardship, to no effect. Evidence supports use of hard stops for this purpose, though less is known about provider acceptance. Methods: Beginning in May 2022, UNCMC implemented a hard stop in its electronic medical record system (EMR) for C. difficile GNCT orders, with exceptions to be approved by an ASP attending physician. Requests were retrospectively reviewed May–November 2022 to monitor for adverse patient outcomes and provider hard-stop compliance. The team exported data from the EMR (Epic Systems) and generated descriptive statistics in Microsoft Excel. Results: There were 85 GNCT orders during the study period. Most tests (62%) were reviewed by the ASP, and 38% sought non-ASP or no approval. Of the tests reviewed by the ASP, 33 (62%) were approved and 20 (38%) were not. Among tests not approved by the ASP, no patients subsequently received CDI-directed antibiotics, and 1 patient (5%) warranted same-admission CDI testing (negative). Of tests that circumvented ASP review, 18 (56%) ordering providers received a follow-up email from an associate chief medical officer to determine the rationale. No single response type dominated: 3 (17%) were unaware of the ASP review requirement, 2 (11%) indicated their patient’s uncharted refusal of laxatives, 2 (11%) indicated another patient-specific reason. Provider avoidance of the ASP approval mechanism decreased 38%, from 53% of noncompliant tests in month 1 to 33% of tests in month 6. Total tests orders dropped 15.5% from 1,129 during the same period in 2021 to 954 during the study period (95% CI, 13.4%–17.7%). Compliance with the guideline component requiring at least a 48-hour laxative-free interval prior to CDI testing increased from 85% (95% CI, 83%–87%) to 95% (95% CI, 93%–96%). CDI incidence rates decreased from 0.52 per 1,000 patient days (95% CI, 0.41–0.65) to 0.41 (95% CI, 0.32–0.53), though the change was neither significant at P = .05 nor attributable to any 1 intervention. Conclusions: Over time and with feedback to providers circumventing the exception process, providers accepted and used the hard stop, improving diagnostic stewardship and avoiding unneeded treatment.

Disclosures: None

Background: Central-line–associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) are linked to increased morbidity and mortality, longer hospital stays, and significantly higher healthcare costs. Infection prevention guidelines recommend line placement in specific insertion locations over others because of the relative risk of infection. The purpose of this study was to assess CLABSI rates by line type to determine whether some central lines had a lower risk of infection and should be recommended over others given similar clinical indications. Methods: At UNC Hospitals, data were obtained on central lines across a 3-year period (FY20–FY22) from the EMR (Epic Systems). Central lines were categorized as apheresis catheters, CVC lines (single, double, or triple lumen), hemodialysis catheters, introducer lines, pulmonary artery (PA) catheters, PICC lines (single, double, or triple lumen), port-a-catheters, trialysis catheters, or umbilical lines. The line type(s) associated with each CLABSI during the same period were recorded, and CLABSI rates by line type per 1,000 central-line days were calculated using SAS software. If an infection had >1 central-line device type associated, the infection was counted twice when calculating the CLABSI rate by line type. We calculated 95% CIs for each point estimate to assess for statistically significant differences in rates by line type. Results: During FY20–FY22, there were 264,425 central-line days and 458 CLABSIs, for an overall CLABSI rate of 1.73 CLABSIs per 1,000 central-line days. Also, 16% of patients with a CLABSI had >1 type of central line in place. Stratified data on CLABSI rates by each central-line type is presented in the Figure. CLABSI rates were highest in patients with apheresis lines (6.22; 95% CI, 3.96–9.35) and PA catheters (6.22; 95% CI, 3.54–10.20), and the lowest CLABSI rates occurred in patients with PICC lines (1.44; 95% CI, 1.19–1.73) and port-a-catheters (1.14; 95% CI, 0.89, 1.45). For both CVC and PICC lines, as the number of lumens increased from single to triple, CLABSI rates increased, from 0.91 to 2.63 and from 0.57 to 1.20, respectively. Conclusions: At our hospital, different types of central lines were associated with statistically higher CLABSI rates. Additionally, a higher number of lumens (triple vs single) in CVC and PICC lines were also associated with statistically higher CLABSI rates. These findings reinforce the importance of considering central-line type and number of lumens to minimize risk of CLABSI while ensuring that patients have the best line type based on their clinical needs.

Disclosures: None

Background: Working while ill, or presenteeism, has been documented at substantial levels among healthcare personnel (HCP) along with its consequences for both patient and HCP safety. Limited literature has been published on HCP presenteeism during the COVID-19 pandemic, and specific motivations for this behavior are not well described. Understanding both individual and systemic factors that contribute to presenteeism is key to reducing respiratory illness transmission in the healthcare setting. We characterized the frequency of and motivations for presenteeism in the workforce of a large academic medical center during the COVID-19 pandemic. Method: We deployed a voluntary, anonymous electronic survey to HCP at University of North Carolina (UNC) Medical Center in December 2021, which was approved by the UNC Institutional Review Board. We received 591 responses recruited through employee newsletters. Respondents recounted their frequency of presenteeism since March 2020, defined as coming to work feeling feverish plus cough and/or sore throat. In total, 24.6% reported presenteeism at least once, with 8.1% reporting twice and 5.3% 3 or more times. Asking more generally about any symptoms while working, the following were most common: headache (26%), sinus congestion (20%), sore throat (13%), cough (13%), and muscle aches (9.3%). Results: Motivations for presenteeism fell broadly into 4 categories: (1) perception of low risk for COVID-19 infection, (2) concerns about workplace culture and operations, (3) issues with sick leave, and (4) concerns about employment record and status. Among HCP reporting at least 1 instance, the most common motivations for presenteeism included feeling low risk for COVID-19 infection due to mild symptoms (59.9%), being vaccinated (50.6%), avoiding increasing colleagues’ workload (48.3%), avoiding employment record impact (39.6%), and saving sick days for other purposes (37.9%). Asked to identify a primary motivation, 40.3% reported feeling low risk for COVID-19 infection due to mild symptoms or vaccination, 21.2% reported a workplace culture issue (ie, increasing colleague workload, perception of weakness, responsibility for patients), 20.6% reported sick leave availability and use (including difficulty finding coverage) and 17.8% reported employment record ramifications including termination. Conclusions: This survey coincided with 2the onset of the SARS-CoV-2 ο (omicron) variant locally, and as such, risk perceptions and motivations for presenteeism may have changed. Responses were self-reported and generalizability is limited. Still, these results highlight the importance of risk messaging and demonstrate the many factors to be considered as potential presenteeism motivators. Mitigating these drivers is particularly critical during high-risk times such as pandemics or seasonal peaks of respiratory illness.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

Background: Although vaccine hesitancy has been an issue for many years, it has become a major point of contention in the effort to mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic. In August 2021, a large academic medical facility began capturing the vaccination status of admitted COVID-19–positive patients, as well as their interest in the COVID-19 vaccine. We performed a descriptive analysis on the characteristics of unvaccinated patients who contracted COVID-19 and their interest in receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. Methods: Patient history and physical (H&P) notes and demographic data were collected using the internal data warehouse sourced from the electronic medical record for all SARS-COV-2–positive inpatient admissions to UNC Medical Center and UNC Chatham from August 1, 2021, to January 11, 2022. Manual chart reviews of progress notes were completed for patients whose history was not recorded in the initial H&P. Demographic data were summarized by vaccine status overall and by interest in COVID-19 vaccine among unvaccinated patients. We performed χ2 to determine demographic differences between the interested and uninterested unvaccinated groups. Results: In total, 536 patients were admitted with COVID-19 from August 1, 2021, to January 11, 2022. Of these, 15% were fully vaccinated (2 doses mRNA plus 1 dose J&J); 5.4% were partially vaccinated; 75.7% were unvaccinated; and 2.9% had an unknown vaccination status. Demographic characteristics are presented in Table 1. The most common demographics were consistent among the fully vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, with the exception of sex and age group (Table 1). For those whose interest data were available (n = 164), 34% were uninterested in receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. Importantly, race and age were statistically significantly different (P < .05) between the unvaccinated interested and unvaccinated uninterested groups. Conclusions: Even after experiencing COVID-19 firsthand and being hospitalized, some people who remain uninterested in receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. This population had a statistically higher proportion of white and older individuals than the unvaccinated interested group. Recommendations from healthcare providers might not be effective in persuading this population to be vaccinated. Instead, grassroots alternatives might be more successful. Additional analysis should be considered on whether patients who expressed interest in COVID-19 vaccine received immunization.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

Overall, engagement and compliance from the crowd-sourced hand hygiene observation program, Clean-In-Clean-Out (CICO), were similar between 2019 (96.6%) and 2020 (96.7%) despite fluctuations within 2020 that reflected our hospital’s coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) experience. Shared responsibility and just-in-time reminders can allow manual hand hygiene observation models to be sustainable.

Background: The use of personal protective equipment (PPE) is a critical intervention in preventing the spread of transmission-based infections in healthcare settings. However, contamination of the skin and clothing of healthcare personnel (HCP) frequently occurs during the doffing of PPE. In fact, nearly 40% of HCP make errors while doffing their PPE, causing them to contaminate themselves. PPE monitors are staff that help to promote their colleagues’ safety by guiding them through the PPE donning and doffing processes. With the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020, the UNC Medical Center chose to incorporate PPE monitors as part of its comprehensive COVID-19 prevention strategy, using them in inpatient areas (including COVID-19 containment units and all other units with known or suspected SARS-CoV-2–positive patients), procedural areas, and outpatient clinics. Methods: Infection prevention and nursing developed a PPE monitoring team using redeployed staff from outpatient clinics and inpatient areas temporarily closed because of the pandemic. Employee training took place online and included fundamentals of disease transmission, hand hygiene basics, COVID-19 policies and signage, and videos on proper donning and doffing, including coaching tips. The monitors’ first shifts were supervised by experienced monitors to continue in-place training. Employees had competency sheets signed off by a supervisor. Results: The Medical Center’s nursing house supervisors took over management and deployment of the PPE monitoring team, and infection prevention staff continued to train new members. Eventually, as closed clinics and areas reopened and these PPE monitors returned to their regular positions, areas used their own staff to perform the role of PPE monitor. In the fall of 2020, a facility-wide survey was sent to all inpatient staff to assess their perceptions of the Medical Center’s efforts to protect them from acquiring COVID-19. It included a question asking how much staff agreed or disagreed that PPE monitors “play an important role in keeping our staff who care for COVID-19 patients safe.” Of the 626 staff who answered this question, 67.6% agreed or strongly agreed that PPE monitors played an important role in keeping staff safe. Thus far, there has been no direct transmission or clusters of COVID-19 involving HCP in COVID-19 containment units with PPE monitors. Conclusions: PPE monitors are an important part of a comprehensive COVID-19 prevention strategy. In early 2021, the UNC Medical Center posted and hired paid PPE monitor positions to continue this critical work in a sustainable way.

Funding: No

Disclosures: None

Background: Care bundles comprise evidence-based practices and interventions that are easily and consistently implemented while improving patient outcomes. As patient acuity and task overload continue to increase, infection prevention bundle and process measure compliance and data collection may become a lower priority for registered nurses (RNs). In early 2019, a certified nursing assistant (CNA) began full-time quality liaison work on a 53-bed inpatient adult oncology unit at UNC Medical Center to provide targeted compliance data collection and to correct deficits in real time when possible and within the appropriate scope of practice. Methods: The quality liaison CNA is highly motivated, with a relevant clinical background and effective communication skills. After conducting a gap analysis, the unit developed specific responsibilities for several areas of quality improvement, including infection prevention. In addition to rounding on all patients daily, the quality liaison (1) performs direct patient care tasks like Foley catheter care, (2) conducts patient education on topics such as chlorhexidine gluconate treatments, (3) performs all relevant process measure audits, and (4) easily relays missed or needed care to RNs with a door sign created as part of this initiative. High-risk findings, such as a loose central-line dressing, prompt immediate communication to the RN, with follow-up and escalation when necessary. Results: Patients and staff received the quality liaison well, and the increased attention to care bundle components and auditing ensured consistent, evidence-based care along with accurate and reliable data collection. Compared to the previous calendar year, the number of central-line audits on the unit increased by >1,400 by the end of 2019. Patient outcomes improved, and during 1 fiscal year, the unit achieved rate reductions between 40% and 55% for central-line–associated bloodstream infections, catheter-associated urinary tract infections, and healthcare-associated C. difficile infections. Staffing and logistical challenges imposed by the COVID-19 global pandemic have hampered this work because the quality liaison was redeployed to direct patient care intermittently. Correspondingly, from July to October 2020, the same infection rates increased between 30% and 353%. Conclusions: Having a designated quality liaison is an effective means to achieving quality improvements while remaining an integral member of the patient care team. As staffing has improved on this unit, the quality liaison has refocused efforts, and infection rates are beginning to improve. Given the success of the quality liaison role in improving quality outcomes on this unit, the hospital is exploring expansion of this model to additional units.

Funding: No

Disclosures: None

Background: Hand hygiene is essential to preventing the spread of disease in hospitals. Renewed emphasis has been placed on hand hygiene during the COVID-19 pandemic. We investigated whether UNC Medical Center’s well-established Clean-In Clean-Out (CICO) program for hand hygiene observations was sustainable throughout a public health and healthcare crisis and whether the COVID-19 pandemic had an effect on hand hygiene compliance. Methods: UNC Medical Center utilizes a crowd-sourced hand-hygiene audit application, CICO, to track hand-hygiene observations, compliance, and feedback. This application encourages participation from all staff and promotes providing real-time feedback in the form of a compliment or reminder when performing hand hygiene observations. During this evaluation, hand hygiene data were queried from the CICO application on the number of observations performed, hand hygiene compliance percentage, and feedback compliance percentage from July 2019 to December 2020. Hand hygiene data were compared to patient volumes in different care settings and the number of hospitalized patients being treated for COVID-19. Results: Initial increases in hand hygiene observations, compliance, and feedback were detected in the months leading up to UNC Medical Center receiving its first SARS-CoV-2–positive patient. Observations were highest when patient volumes were low due to closed clinics and restrictions on elective surgeries (Figure 1). When patient volumes returned to pre–COVID-19 levels coupled with treating more COVID-19 patients, the number of observations and compliance rate metrics declined. Feedback compliance percentage remained relatively stable through the entire period (Figure 2). Conclusions: Despite the additional strain on healthcare staff during COVID-19, the CICO model was a sustainable method to track hand hygiene observations and compliance. Notably, however, engagement was highest when patient census was lower, demonstrating that operating at a high capacity is not beneficial for patient safety. Due to the success and sustainment of the CICO program, UNC Medical Center used this model to create a Mask-On Mask-Up campaign to engage staff to submit observations, track compliance, and encourage feedback to promote the appropriate use of masks during COVID-19.

Funding: No

Disclosures: None

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Background: Infection prevention efforts are complex, and sustaining reductions is even more challenging. At the UNC Medical Center, multidisciplinary hospital-wide work groups implement quality improvement initiatives to prevent healthcare-associated infections. The first and most successful initiative has been our catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) prevention effort, which started in 2014. The program led to initial dramatic reductions, with continued reductions in CAUTI rates each year since then. Methods: A multidisciplinary workgroup formed in 2014 developed an evidence-based CAUTI prevention bundle and partnered with the nursing staff in 2015–2016 to implement practice changes as part of our hospital’s quality improvement “Spread of Innovations” model. These changes included (1) creation of a 2-person catheter-insertion checklist; (2) insertion skills validation for all nursing staff and nursing assistants; (3) standardization of a maintenance protocol and subsequent education and skills validation with nurses and nurse assistants; and (4) peer audits of urinary catheter maintenance. Additional initiatives implemented over the past 5 years include (1) routine resident education on CAUTI prevention; (2) annual nurse competencies to reinforce skills around CAUTI prevention; (3) introduction of products (eg, PureWick) as alternatives to indwelling catheters; (4) diagnostic stewardship efforts; (5) revisions to the electronic medical record; and (6) efforts to encourage removal of unnecessary catheters such as the “nurse-driven conversation” and Trial of Void. Results: Our CAUTI rates decreased 65% from 2.94 per 1,000 catheter days in the baseline period of 2014 to 1.02 in 2018. In our ICUs (excluding the neonatal ICU), the rate dropped 75% from 4.30 in 2014 to 1.08 per 1,000 catheter days in 2018. Conclusions: We attribute our continued reductions and successful sustainment of low CAUTI rates to several factors. First, the use of a multidisciplinary team was critical to obtaining buy-in from key stakeholders including nursing, nurse assistants, physicians, pharmacists, performance improvement specialists, and administration. Second, continuation of the maintenance peer audits outside the initial project year has provided an important framework for this project, giving regular opportunities for frontline staff to evaluate patients’ catheter condition and to give feedback to colleagues or “just in time education.” These activities potentially prevent infections in real time. Third, with the many competing priorities demanding clinicians’ attention, it has been important for the CAUTI workgroup to continue to evaluate the problem, to determine where opportunities for improvement remain, and to tailor initiatives to meet those needs. In this way, new work can focus on priorities identified by staff, and CAUTI prevention initiatives remain relevant.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

Background: Despite clear guidance for appropriate testing of symptomatic patients for Clostridioides difficile testing (McDonald et al), the ideal testing methodology remains unresolved. Laboratories currently use different algorithms that incorporate enzyme immunoassay (EIA) testing for toxin, glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) antigen, and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing in combination or as a single test. At UNC Hospitals, a large academic hospital with nearly 1,000 beds in the ninth most populous state in the United States, patients are currently tested by an EIA test for toxin and GDH antigen first, and discordant toxin/GDH results are referred for PCR testing. Previous studies have demonstrated that detection of toxin by EIA is a better predictor of C. difficile infection (CDI) complications (Polage et al). Methods: We investigated all patients who were tested for C. difficile from July 2018 to June 2019. Within each testing methodology and result, we assessed the percentage of patients with at least 3 loose stools documented within a 24-hour period, percentage with a severe episode based on white blood cell (WBC) counts >15,000 cells/mL, or percentage with a serum creatinine level >1.5 mg/dL. Fisher-type confidence intervals were calculated for each proportion. Results: Patients positive for C. difficile by the EIA method had 66.9% appropriate loose stool documentation (95% CI, 57.4%–75.5%), whereas patients with EIA-indeterminate (toxin negative, GDH positive) and positive by only PCR had 49.7% appropriate loose stool documentation (95% CI, 42.7%–56.8%). C. difficile patients that tested negative had 48.1% appropriate loose stool documentation (95% CI, 46.0–50.2%). In addition, patients positive by the EIA method had nearly double the proportion of severe disease by WBC or creatinine criteria compared to patients who were either positive by PCR or who tested negative (Table 1). Conclusions: Patients positive for C. difficile by the EIA method were statistically more likely to meet criteria for loose stool documentation. There was no statistically significant difference between patients that tested positive only by PCR or who tested negative. The percentage of patients with severe episode criteria based on WBC or creatinine was nearly doubled between those who tested positive by EIA and PCR (20% vs 10%), although this finding was not statistically significant. The percentage with severe disease (WBC or creatinine) was nearly identical among patients who were positive by PCR and who tested negative. These findings demonstrate that documentation of loose stool is a more sensitive indicator of toxin detection than either clinical parameter, reinforcing the importance of stool documentation in evaluating patients for C. difficile testing.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

Background: A critical step during outbreak investigations is actively screening for additional cases to assess ongoing transmission. In the healthcare setting, one widely used method is point-prevalence screening on the whole unit where a positive patient is housed. Although this point-prevalence approach captures the “place,” it can miss the “person” and “time” elements that define the population-at-risk. Methods: At University of North Carolina (UNC) Hospitals, we used business intelligence tools to build a query that harnesses the admission, discharge, and transfer (ADT) data from the electronic medical record (EMR). Using this data identifies every patient who overlapped in time and space with a positive patient. An additional query identifies currently admitted overlap patients and their current location. During an outbreak investigation, an analyst executes these queries in the mornings when surveillance screens are scheduled. The queries generate a list of patients to screen that are prioritized on the number of days they were in the same unit with the positive patient. This overlap methodology successfully captures the person, place, and time associated with possible disease transmission. We implemented the overlap method for the last 3 months following 1 year of point-prevalence approach screening during a novel disease outbreak at UNC Hospitals. Results: In total, 4,385 unique patients overlapped with previously identified infected or colonized patients, of which 781 (17.8%) from 40 departments were screened over 15 months. During a subsequent, currently ongoing, outbreak, we are utilizing the overlap method and in 6 weeks have already screened 161 of the 1,234 overlapping patients (13%). After 3 rounds of overlap screening, we have already been able to identify 1 additional positive patient. This patient was on the same unit as patient zero 4 months prior but was readmitted to a unit that would not have received a point-prevalence screen using the standard approach. Conclusions: Surveillance screening is a time-consuming, resource-intensive effort that requires collaboration between infection prevention, clinical staff, patients, and the laboratory. By harnessing EMR ADT data, we can better target the population at risk and more efficiently utilize resources during outbreak investigations. In addition, the overlap method fills a gap in the current CDC guidelines by focusing on patients who were on the same unit with any positive patient, including those who discharged and readmitted. Most importantly, we identified an additional positive patient that would not have been detected through a point-prevalence screen, helping us prevent further disease transmission.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None