The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, the Association of Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, and the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society represent the core expertise regarding healthcare infection prevention and infectious diseases and have written multisociety statement for healthcare facility leaders, regulatory agencies, payors, and patients to strengthen requirements and expectations around facility infection prevention and control (IPC) programs. Based on a systematic literature search and formal consensus process, the authors advocate raising the expectations for facility IPC programs, moving to effective programs that are:

• Foundational and influential parts of the facility’s operational structure

• Resourced with the correct expertise and leadership

• Prioritized to address all potential infectious harms

This document discusses the IPC program’s leadership—a dyad model that includes both physician and infection preventionist leaders—its reporting structure, expertise, and competencies of its members, and the roles and accountability of partnering groups within the healthcare facility. The document outlines a process for identifying minimum IPC program medical director support. It applies to all types of healthcare settings except post-acute long-term care and focuses on resources for the IPC program. Long-term acute care hospital (LTACH) staffing and antimicrobial stewardship programs will be discussed in subsequent documents.

The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated changes in health care across the nation. Particularly, infection prevention programs have been subjected to pressures and increased responsibilities with no expansion in support. In addition, there is a rapid trend for health systems to merge to ensure long term sustainability. Based on our experience leading infection prevention at one of the largest health systems in the United States, we outline how systems can provide and increase capacity to optimize and enhance the hospital level infection prevention programs and outcomes. In this commentary, “Ten Pillars for the Expansion of Health System Infection Prevention Capacity” we offer 10 categories of what we have found to establish a successful and functioning infection prevention program. The pillars to support the infection prevention programs focus on structure, processes, empowerment, and partnerships, and the elements and strategies that comprise them.

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

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination rates of a large health system reflected their respective service areas but varied by work role. Nurse vaccination rates were higher (56.9%) and rates among nursing support personnel were lower (38.6%) than those of their communities (51.7%; P < .001). Physician vaccination rates were highest (71.6%) and were not associated with community vaccination levels.

The extensive use of the urinalysis for screening and monitoring in diverse clinical settings usually identifies abnormal urinalysis parameters in patients with no suspicion of urinary tract infection, which in turn triggers urine cultures, inappropriate antimicrobial use, and associated harms like Clostridioides difficile infection. We highlight how urinalysis is misused, and suggest deconstructing it to better align with evolving patterns of clinical use and the differential diagnosis being targeted. Reclassifying the urinalysis components into infectious and non-infectious panels and interpreting urinalysis results in the context of individual patient’s pretest probability of disease is a novel approach to promote proper urine testing and antimicrobial stewardship, and achieve better outcomes.

Laboratory-identified bloodstream infections (LAB-ID BSIs) in recently discharged patients are likely to be classified as healthcare-associated community-onset (HCA-CO) infections, even though they may represent hospital-onset (HO) infections. A review of LAB-ID BSIs among patients discharged within 14 days revealed that 109 of 756 cases (14.4%) were HO infections. The BSI risk being misclassified as HCA CO may underestimate the hospital infection risk.

Catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) has long been considered a preventable healthcare-associated infection. Many federal agencies, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), and public and private healthcare organizations have implemented strategies aimed at preventing CAUTIs. To monitor progress in CAUTI prevention, the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) CAUTI metric has been adopted nationally as the primary outcome measure and has been refined over the past decades. However, this surveillance metric may underestimate infectious and noninfectious catheter harm. We suggest evolving to more inclusive performance metrics to better reflect quality improvement efforts underway in hospitals. The standardized device utilization ratio (SUR) provides a good surrogate for preventable catheter harm. On the other hand, a population-based metric that combines both standardized infection ratio (SIR) and SUR would address both infectious and noninfectious harm, while adjusting for population risk. Finally, electronically captured catheter-associated bacteriuria may contribute essential information on local testing stewardship.

We compared interventions to improve urinary catheter care and urine culturing in adult intensive care units of 2 teaching hospitals. Compared to hospital A, hospital B had lower catheter utilization, more compliance with appropriate indications and maintenance, but higher urine culture use and more positive urine cultures per 1,000 patient days.

Of 500 hospital-onset Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia events (58% methicillin-susceptible S. aureus [MSSA]; 42% methicillin-resistant S. aureus [MRSA]), we found no significant differences in S. aureus bacteremia rates between medium-sized and large hospitals. However, the proportion of S. aureus bacteremia caused by MSSA was greater in medium-sized hospitals and did not correlate with MRSA bacteremia.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:476–478