In this survey of infection prevention and control (IPC) professionals, we gauged knowledge, attitudes and institutional practices related to environmental sustainability and IPC. Overall, IPC professionals have not yet universally adopted measures to promote environmental sustainability. More research is needed around environmentally sustainable efforts that preserve patient safety in IPC.

Background: Healthcare contributes significantly to waste production and greenhouse gas emissions. This became especially apparent during the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet there is modest recognition of this issue, particularly within decision-making in Infection Prevention and Control (IPC). The aim of our study was to gauge general knowledge and attitudes of hospital epidemiologists (HEs) and infection preventionists (IPs) around the intersection of environmental sustainability and IPC, and to identify related institutional practices. Methods: An online survey, composed of ten questions related to environmental sustainability in IPC, was created and emailed to members of the SHEA Research Network (SRN), a national consortium of healthcare facilities collaborating on IPC research, from August - October 2023. Survey answers were collated via Redcap© and descriptive results were obtained. Results: Forty-two individuals (33 HEs, 7 directors of IPC, and 2 IPs) from unique institutions completed the survey. Thirty (71.4%) were from academic medical centers, 5 (11.9%) were from VA medical centers and 7 (16.7%) were from community hospitals. Over half of participants correctly estimated the amount of waste and carbon emissions produced annually by the US healthcare system (6 million tons and 8.5% of national emissions, respectively). However, only 42.9% considered environmental sustainability concerns important or very important when making IPC decisions. Fifteen (34.9%) had an environmental sustainability committee at their institution and of these, 8 had an established relationship with the IPC department. The most common techniques to promote sustainability amongst institutions were water/energy conservation (59.5%), reusable personal protective equipment (52.4%) and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification (47.6%). When asked which efforts they would support at their institution, 28.6% would eliminate the use of single-use endoscopes and one third would avoid use of ethylene oxide for sterilization. In deciding whether to support environmental sustainability measures, key considerations participants articulated were patient safety concerns, knowledge about effectiveness and costs, and administrative support. Conclusion: Although there is growing awareness around the contribution of the healthcare industry to carbon emissions and waste production, IPC professionals have not yet universally adopted measures to promote environmental sustainability. In our survey, many participants acknowledged the importance of balancing patient safety and sustainability concerns. Our study demonstrates the need for more research and education to inform decisions around environmentally sustainable efforts in IPC that also preserve patient safety. Additionally, professional and regulatory bodies must acknowledge and promote the importance of environmental sustainability in IPC decision-making.

Background: Our institution utilizes a two-step algorithm consisting of an initial polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test with positive results reflexed to an enzyme immunoassay (EIA) for toxin. Institutional guidelines implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic recommended applying clinical judgment to patients with PCR+/Toxin- (discordant) results when determining if treatment is indicated. Pre-pandemic, we found that clinicians continued CDI-directed therapy in 56% of patients following the Toxin- result. Our study aims to identify how clinicians interpret PCR+/Toxin- results and reasons for management decisions post-pandemic. Methods: At an academic medical center, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of the first 50 inpatient charts with PCR+/Toxin- results from August to October 2022. Data was abstracted from clinical, pharmacy, and microbiology databases. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients continued on CDI-directed therapy for ≥24 hours after the Toxin- result became available. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients prescribed a full treatment course for CDI and the reasons for continuing treatment. Results: There were 37 patients (74%) who started CDI-directed treatment after initial PCR+ Results: Of these patients, 59% (22/37) were continued on treatment for ≥24 hours after the Toxin- result (primary outcome). 77% (17/22) of these patients who met the primary outcome completed full treatment courses. Three patients were transitioned to prophylaxis dosing after the Toxin- result. The most common reason for continuing treatment after discordant results was high clinical suspicion for CDI (Figure). There were no CDI-related complications in this 50-patient cohort. In immunocompromised patients, 70% (16/23) started treatment after initial PCR+ results and 81% (13/16) met the primary outcome. In patients admitted specifically to immunocompromised inpatient services, 90% (9/10) started treatment after initial PCR+ results and 100% (9/9) met the primary outcome. Conclusion: The majority of patients started on treatment after the PCR+ result were continued on treatment following the Toxin- result, though several of these patients did not complete full treatment courses. Treatment rates were similar to our pre-pandemic baseline. When patients were continued on treatment after discordant results, clinicians cited appropriate high clinical suspicion. Notably, every patient admitted to an immunocompromised service was continued on treatment after Toxin- Results: Overall, clinicians are following institutional guidelines by applying clinical judgement when interpreting discordant Results: Further research will help identify what variables affect clinician interpretation and management practices for discordant results, which will help shape institutional guideline updates, clinician education, and additional stewardship interventions.

In this study, we examined the impact of the number and type of arterial grafts, and surgical dressing type, on deep and organ/space surgical site infection following coronary artery bypass graft procedures. Bilateral internal mammary artery grafts and negative pressure wound therapy were associated with higher odds of infection.

Refugee and migrant populations have increased vulnerability to antimicrobial resistance, yet stewardship guidance is lacking. We addressed this gap through a cross-sectional survey, finding that these populations and immigrants from low and middle-income countries had lower health literacy on the issue compared to native-born Americans and those from high-income countries.

Background: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global health threat, particularly in refugee populations, due to challenges posed by migration. Little guidance has been provided by public health agencies regarding antimicrobial stewardship specific to this demographic. Studies have primarily focused on encampment areas abroad. We sought to better understand health literacy and beliefs regarding AMR in local refugee and immigrant populations in southeastern Michigan. Methods: From November 1, 2022 to March 10, 2023, we distributed an anonymous questionnaire to adult patients at four primary care clinics in Southeastern Michigan and made it available online. The questionnaire collected demographic information and used 5-point Likert scale responses regarding antibiotic use in children with symptoms of respiratory infection. We binarized the questions and responses to determine whether respondents provided the preferred response and added these to create an overall health literacy score, then used simple linear and multivariable linear regression modeling to identify demographic variables independently associated with the health literacy score. Chi-squared and Mann-Whitney tests were also performed where appropriate. Results: Immigrants and refugees/asylum-seekers from low or middle-income countries (group A, n = 109) were compared to native-born Americans and immigrants from high-income countries (group B, n = 171) with participants from 40 countries (Figure 1). Age distribution did not differ between groups, while group B had generally longer duration of living in the United States (Figure 2). Differences were found in other demographic categories except female gender, with group B reporting higher income, educational levels, and English ability (Figure 3). Simple linear regression revealed that all demographic variables except age significantly correlated with responses (Figure 4). Multivariable linear regression showed that female gender, educational level, and age correlated with greater health literacy, while being in group A trended towards significance with respect to correlating with lesser health literacy (Figure 5). Conclusions: Immigrants and refugees/asylum-seekers from LMICs demonstrated beliefs suggesting deficits in knowledge of AMR compared to native-born Americans and those from high-income countries, independent of other potentially confounding demographic characteristics. Female gender, educational level, and age independently correlated with greater health literacy. These results could inform future patient-centered antimicrobial stewardship educational interventions in certain target populations such as immigrants and refugees/asylum-seekers in the United States.

Disclosures: None

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic highlighted the lack of agreement regarding the definition of aerosol-generating procedures and potential risk to healthcare personnel. We convened a group of Massachusetts healthcare epidemiologists to develop consensus through expert opinion in an area where broader guidance was lacking at the time.

Antimicrobial resistance is a well-known global health threat that has higher prevalence in the refugee population. Although guidance has been provided by the World Health Organization and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on implementing antimicrobial stewardship in lower- and middle-income countries, as well as by the United Nations Refugee Agency on other infection prevention and control efforts, no specific guidance exists for implementation of stewardship in this population. We highlight challenges specific to this population, review recent studies of interest within this space, and propose a research agenda to help move stewardship forward in the refugee population. We advocate for the importance of this issue, particularly given recent current events of geopolitical volatility that render this population more vulnerable, in the setting of its already well-known numerous health challenges.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has created personal protective equipment (PPE) shortages, particularly of N95 respirators. Institutions have used decontamination strategies including vaporous hydrogen peroxide (VHP) to augment respirator supplies. VHP can be used to decontaminate nonporous surfaces without compromising material integrity. However, little is known about its impact on N95 respirator efficacy. We assessed whether repeated VHP reprocessing altered 4 key respirator efficacy qualities: quantitative fit, qualitative fit, seal check, and filtration rate. Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study from June 15 to August 31, 2020. In total, 7 participants were fitted to a 3M 1860 small or regular N95 respirator based on qualitative and quantitative fit testing. Respirators underwent 25 disinfection cycles with the Bioquell BQ-50 VHP generator. After each cycle, participants donned and doffed respirators and performed a seal check. Participants were given 2 attempts to pass their seal check. Every 10 cycles, qualitative fit testing was done using an aerosolized Bitrex solution. Quantitative fit testing was conducted using a PortaCount Pro 8038 Fit Tester to generate a fit factor score. Appropriate fit is defined as a fit factor score of 100 or greater. Quantitative testing was done at cycles 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 15, 20, and 25. Filtration efficiencies of particles ≥0.3 µm in diameter were measured using the TSI Optical Particle Sizer 3330 at cycles 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25. The Fisher exact test was used to assess qualitative fit and seal check. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to analyze quantitative fit and filtration rate. Results: We observed no seal-check or quantitative-fit test failures during the study window. All participants passed qualitative fit testing. Although there was a significant degree of variability in fit factor scores across disinfection cycles (mean score 163.5, p <0.05), there was no significant difference between participants (p = 0.6) (Figure 1). There was no statistically significant change in mean filtration rate from cycle 10 to 25 (P = .05), and the filtration rate remained >95% by cycle 25 (Figure 2). Conclusions: VHP reprocessing did not diminish the efficacy of N95 respirators based on the 4 metrics we assessed: filtration rate, seal check, qualitative fit, and quantitative fit. Of significance, the filtration rate remained well above the 95% standard filtration for N95 respirators—even through 25 cycles of reprocessing. VHP reprocessing is a safe, viable strategy to disinfect N95 respirators and extend their use, particularly during supply shortages.

Funding: No

Disclosures: None

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Background: In the spring of 2020, we identified 3 patients with organ-space surgical site infections (SSIs) secondary to Mycobacterium abscessus (Table 1). All 3 patients underwent cardiac surgery in the same operating room (OR) during which the CardioQuip Modular Cooler-Heaters (MCHs) were used. We describe key aspects of our cluster investigation, which ultimately led to release of a national safety alert by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Methods: For environmental cultures, we obtained samples from 9 MCHs in circulation; 2 scrub sink samples; ice from the OR ice machine; water samples from sinks in the cardiovascular critical care unit, and water samples from floors above the cardiac ORs. All samples were sent for molecular genotyping. For pathway studies, an external environmental engineering team was consulted who conducted smoke pathway tests in 3 different ORs. The team also conducted a particle generator experiment, simulating the set-up of a cardiac bypass surgery case. To assess disinfection practices, we reviewed the manufacturer instructions for use (IFU) protocol of the MCHs and audited our own policies and procedures to ensure compliance. Results: For environmental cultures, molecular typing from 5 of 9 MCHs and all 3 patient SSI isolates returned positive for the identical hybrid species M. abscessus bolleti. All other samples with mycobacterial growth returned with different species. For pathway studies, the particle-generator experiment demonstrated particle movement from the MCH to the sterile field with facilities-guidelines–compliant OR ventilation and despite MCH manufacturing design. For disinfection practices, despite compliance with the stated IFU, and in consultation with experts, we implemented disinfection of associated Quick-connect devices (otherwise not stated in the IFU), and we also initiated a precleaning step prior to disinfection. Conclusions: Our investigation concluded that 3 patients developed SSIs with Mycobacterium abscessus that was aerosolized from the CardioQuip MCH. This finding led to the national FDA safety report alerting providers to risks associated with the device and the need for continued vigilance around disinfection. In addition, we implemented other control measures including placement of MCHs outside all ORs; creation of a separate MCH fleet for non-OR use; and use of modified disinfection protocols. To date, no additional cases have been identified.

Funding: No

Disclosures: None

Table 1.

Background: Hospital-onset bacteremia and fungemia (HOB) may be a preventable hospital-acquired condition and a potential healthcare quality measure. We developed and evaluated a tool to assess the preventability of HOB and compared it to a more traditional consensus panel approach. Methods: A 10-member healthcare epidemiology expert panel independently rated the preventability of 82 hypothetical HOB case scenarios using a 6-point Likert scale (range, 1= “Definitively or Almost Certainly Preventable” to 6= “Definitely or Almost Certainly Not Preventable”). Ratings on the 6-point scale were collapsed into 3 categories: Preventable (1–2), Uncertain (3–4), or Not preventable (5–6). Consensus was defined as concurrence on the same category among ≥70% expert raters. Cases without consensus were deliberated via teleconference, web-based discussion, and a second round of rating. The proportion meeting consensus, overall and by predefined HOB source attribution, was calculated. A structured HOB preventability rating tool was developed to explicitly account for patient intrinsic and extrinsic healthcare-related risks (Fig. 1). Two additional physician reviewers independently applied this tool to adjudicate the same 82 case scenarios. The tool was iteratively revised based on reviewer feedback followed by repeat independent tool-based adjudication. Interrater reliability was evaluated using the Kappa statistic. Proportion of cases where tool-based preventability category matched expert consensus was calculated. Results: After expert panel round 1, consensus criteria were met for 29 cases (35%), which increased to 52 (63%) after round 2. Expert consensus was achieved more frequently for respiratory or surgical site infections than urinary tract and central-line–associated bloodstream infections (Fig. 2a). Most likely to be rated preventable were vascular catheter infections (64%) and contaminants (100%). For tool-based adjudication, following 2 rounds of rating with interim tool revisions, agreement between the 2 reviewers was 84% for cases overall (κ, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64–0.88]), and 87% for the 52 cases with expert consensus (κ, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65–0.94). Among cases with expert consensus, tool-based rating matched expert consensus in 40 of 52 (77%) and 39 of 52 (75%) cases for reviewer 1 and reviewer 2, respectively. The proportion of cases rated “uncertain“ was lower among tool-based adjudicated cases with reviewer agreement (15 of 69) than among cases with expert consensus (23 of 52) (Fig. 2b). Conclusions: Healthcare epidemiology experts hold varying perspectives on HOB preventability. Structured tool-based preventability rating had high interreviewer reliability, matched expert consensus in most cases, and rated fewer cases with uncertain preventability compared to expert consensus. This tool is a step toward standardized assessment of preventability in future HOB evaluations.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

Background: Resin-containing blood culture bottles (RBB) are used to increase the isolation of microorganisms by binding antimicrobials in sampled blood. Since RBB implementation in April 2018, our infection preventionists noted an increase in positive blood cultures on routine surveillance. Objective: To describe the change in bacterial isolation post-RBB implementation. Methods: All positive blood culture sets drawn in adult inpatient units or the emergency room between October 2017 and September 2018 and their associated organisms were obtained from the hospital laboratory database. Then, regardless of central-line placement or “present on admission” designation, the 2019 NHSN surveillance definitions for laboratory-confirmed bloodstream infection (LCBI-1 and LCBI-2) were applied to categorize all positive cultures as “common commensals” (CCs) or pathogens. A univariate analysis was performed using the Mantel-Haenszel χ2 test (OpenEpi version 3.01). Results: Although the number of monthly blood cultures drawn remained effectively stable before and after implementation (pre-RBB median, 3,512.5; post-RBB median, 3,626), the rate ratio of positive cultures increased by 1.36 times: pre-RBB median, 127 sets per month and post-RBB median, 172.5 sets per month (χ2 = 5.785; P = .008). The rate ratio of pathogen-containing cultures increased by 1.40 times (pre-RBB median, 98 sets per month and post-RBB median, 137.5 sets per month; χ² = 5.615; P = .009) with only a 1.24 increase in CCs (pre-RBB median, 29 and post-RBB median, 36; χ² = 0.553; P = .229) (Fig. 1). Conclusions: After RBB implementation, the monthly incidence rate of pathogen-containing sets increased. Additionally, the increase in these sets as well as of overall positive blood cultures was statistically significant. Current literature on RBBs does not suggest preferential increased isolation of pathogens. Further study is needed to determine whether our findings are related to blood-culturing practices or the RBBs themselves.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

Infection prevention in electrophysiology (EP) laboratories is poorly characterized; thus, we conducted a cross-sectional survey using the SHEA Research Network. We found limited uptake of basic interventions, such as surveillance and appropriate peri-procedural antimicrobial use. Further study is needed to identify ways to improve infection prevention in this setting.