Asymptomatic patients colonized with toxigenic Clostridioides difficile are at risk of progressing to C. difficile infection (CDI), but risk factors associated with progression are poorly understood. The objectives of this study were to estimate the incidence and identify risk factors to progression of hospital-onset CDI (HO-CDI) among colonized patients.

This was a nested case-control study at an academic medical center including adult patients colonized with toxigenic C. difficile, detected via polymerase chain reaction (PCR) on a rectal swab collected on admission from 2017 to 2020. Patients with prior CDI or symptoms on admission, neutropenia, prior rectal surgery, or hospitalization less than 24 hours were excluded. Colonized patients that developed HO-CDI were matched 1:3 to colonized patients who did not based on PCR test date. Bivariate and multivariable-adjusted Cox regression analyses were used to identify risk factors.

Of 2,150 colonized patients, 109 developed HO-CDI, with an incidence of 5.1%. After exclusions, 321 patients (69 with HO-CDI) were included, with an estimated incidence of 4.2%. Risk factors included cirrhosis (aHR 1.94), ICU admission (aHR 1.76), malignancy (aHR 1.88), and hospitalization within six months (aHR 1.6). Prior antibiotic exposure in the past three months (aHR 2.14) and receipt of at-risk antibiotics were also identified as potential risk factors (aHR 2.17).

Progression to HO-CDI among colonized patients was not uncommon. This study highlights key risk factors associated with progression, underscoring the importance of enhanced monitoring and prevention efforts tailored to high-risk populations to mitigate HO-CDI.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination effectiveness in healthcare personnel (HCP) has been established. However, questions remain regarding its performance in high-risk healthcare occupations and work locations. We describe the effect of a COVID-19 HCP vaccination campaign on SARS-CoV-2 infection by timing of vaccination, job type, and work location.

We conducted a retrospective review of COVID-19 vaccination acceptance, incidence of postvaccination COVID-19, hospitalization, and mortality among 16,156 faculty, students, and staff at a large academic medical center. Data were collected 8 weeks prior to the start of phase 1a vaccination of frontline employees and ended 11 weeks after campaign onset.

The COVID-19 incidence rate among HCP at our institution decreased from 3.2% during the 8 weeks prior to the start of vaccinations to 0.38% by 4 weeks after campaign initiation. COVID-19 risk was reduced among individuals who received a single vaccination (hazard ratio [HR], 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40–0.68; P < .0001) and was further reduced with 2 doses of vaccine (HR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.09–0.32; P < .0001). By 2 weeks after the second dose, the observed case positivity rate was 0.04%. Among phase 1a HCP, we observed a lower risk of COVID-19 among physicians and a trend toward higher risk for respiratory therapists independent of vaccination status. Rates of infection were similar in a subgroup of nurses when examined by work location.

Our findings show the real-world effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination in HCP. Despite these encouraging results, unvaccinated HCP remain at an elevated risk of infection, highlighting the need for targeted outreach to combat vaccine hesitancy.

Bipolar disorder is a chronic mental health condition, which can result in functional impairment despite medication. A large evidence base supports use of psychological therapies and structured care in the treatment of mood disorders, but these are rarely implemented. e-Pathways are digital structures that inform and record patient progress through a healthcare system, although these have not yet been used for bipolar disorder.

To assess the perceived benefits and costs associated with implementing a collaborative NICE-informed e-pathway for bipolar disorder.

Healthcare professionals and people with bipolar disorder attended a workshop to share feedback on e-pathways. Data were collected through questionnaires (n = 26) and transcription of a focus group, analysed qualitatively by a framework analysis.

Patients and healthcare professionals welcomed the development of an e-pathway for bipolar disorder. There were five elements to the framework: quality and delivery of care, patient–clinician collaboration, flexibility and adaptability, impact on staff and impact on healthcare services.

Identification of benefits and costs ensures that future development of e-pathways addresses concerns of healthcare professionals and people with bipolar disorder, which would be essential for successful implementation. Recommendations for this development include making e-pathways less complicated for patients, ensuring sufficient training and ensuring clinicians do not feel their skills become invalidated. Limitations of the study, and directions for future research, are discussed.

To describe the pattern of transmission of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) during 2 nosocomial outbreaks of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with regard to the possibility of airborne transmission.

Contact investigations with active case finding were used to assess the pattern of spread from 2 COVID-19 index patients.

A community hospital and university medical center in the United States, in February and March, 2020, early in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Two index patients and 421 exposed healthcare workers.

Exposed healthcare workers (HCWs) were identified by analyzing the electronic medical record (EMR) and conducting active case finding in combination with structured interviews. Healthcare coworkers (HCWs) were tested for COVID-19 by obtaining oropharyngeal/nasopharyngeal specimens, and RT-PCR testing was used to detect SARS-CoV-2.

Two separate index patients were admitted in February and March 2020, without initial suspicion for COVID-19 and without contact or droplet precautions in place; both patients underwent several aerosol-generating procedures in this context. In total, 421 HCWs were exposed in total, and the results of the case contact investigations identified 8 secondary infections in HCWs. In all 8 cases, the HCWs had close contact with the index patients without sufficient personal protective equipment. Importantly, despite multiple aerosol-generating procedures, there was no evidence of airborne transmission.

These observations suggest that, at least in a healthcare setting, most SARS-CoV-2 transmission is likely to take place during close contact with infected patients through respiratory droplets, rather than by long-distance airborne transmission.

To evaluate the National Health Safety Network (NHSN) hospital-onset Clostridioides difficile infection (HO-CDI) standardized infection ratio (SIR) risk adjustment for general acute-care hospitals with large numbers of intensive care unit (ICU), oncology unit, and hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) patients.

Retrospective cohort study.

Eight tertiary-care referral general hospitals in California.

We used FY 2016 data and the published 2015 rebaseline NHSN HO-CDI SIR. We compared facility-wide inpatient HO-CDI events and SIRs, with and without ICU data, oncology and/or HCT unit data, and ICU bed adjustment.

For these hospitals, the median unmodified HO-CDI SIR was 1.24 (interquartile range [IQR], 1.15–1.34); 7 hospitals qualified for the highest ICU bed adjustment; 1 hospital received the second highest ICU bed adjustment; and all had oncology-HCT units with no additional adjustment per the NHSN. Removal of ICU data and the ICU bed adjustment decreased HO-CDI events (median, −25%; IQR, −20% to −29%) but increased the SIR at all hospitals (median, 104%; IQR, 90%–105%). Removal of oncology-HCT unit data decreased HO-CDI events (median, −15%; IQR, −14% to −21%) and decreased the SIR at all hospitals (median, −8%; IQR, −4% to −11%).

For tertiary-care referral hospitals with specialized ICUs and a large number of ICU beds, the ICU bed adjustor functions as a global adjustment in the SIR calculation, accounting for the increased complexity of patients in ICUs and non-ICUs at these facilities. However, the SIR decrease with removal of oncology and HCT unit data, even with the ICU bed adjustment, suggests that an additional adjustment should be considered for oncology and HCT units within general hospitals, perhaps similar to what is done for ICU beds in the current SIR.

Central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) is a national target for mandatory reporting and a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services target for value-based purchasing. Differences in chart review versus claims-based metrics used by national agencies and groups raise concerns about the validity of these measures.

Evaluate consistency and reasons for discordance among chart review and claims-based CLABSI events.

We conducted 2 multicenter retrospective cohort studies within 6 academic institutions. A total of 150 consecutive patients were identified with CLABSI on the basis of National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) criteria (NHSN cohort), and an additional 150 consecutive patients were identified with CLABSI on the basis of claims codes (claims cohort). Ail events had full-text medical record reviews and were identified as concordant or discordant with the other metric.

In the NHSN cohort, there were 152 CLABSIs among 150 patients, and 73.0% of these cases were discordant with claims data. Common reasons for the lack of associated claims codes included coding omission and lack of physician documentation of bacteremia cause. In the claims cohort, there were 150 CLABSIs among 150 patients, and 65.3% of these cases were discordant with NHSN criteria. Common reasons for the lack of NHSN reporting were identification of non-CLABSI with bacteremia meeting Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) criteria for an alternative infection source.

Substantial discordance between NHSN and claims-based CLABSI indicators persists. Compared with standardized CDC chart review criteria, claims data often had both coding omissions and misclassification of non-CLABSI infections as CLABSI. Additionally, claims did not identify any additional CLABSIs for CDC reporting. NHSN criteria are a more consistent interhospital standard for CLABSI reporting.