Danielle Doughman, David Weber, Nikolaos Mavrogiorgos, Shelley Summerlin-Long, Michael Swartwood, Alexander Commanday, Lisa Stancill, Nicholas Kane, Emily Sickbert-Bennett Vavalle
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
{"title":"Effects of a hard stop for <i>C. difficile</i> testing: Provider uptake and patient outcomes","authors":"Danielle Doughman, David Weber, Nikolaos Mavrogiorgos, Shelley Summerlin-Long, Michael Swartwood, Alexander Commanday, Lisa Stancill, Nicholas Kane, Emily Sickbert-Bennett Vavalle","doi":"10.1017/ash.2023.280","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ash.2023.280","url":null,"abstract":"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","PeriodicalId":7953,"journal":{"name":"Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135144614","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Background: With the emergence of new infectious diseases, infection control nursing (ICN) in hospitals has become increasingly significant. Consequently, research on ICN has been actively performed. We examined the knowledge structure and trends addressed in Korean ICN research. Methods: From 5 web-based Korean academic databases (DBpia, KISS, KMbase, KoreaMed, and RISS), 2,244 studies published between 2013 and 2022 were retrieved using ICN-related search terms (eg, “nurse” or “nursing” along with “infection control,” “infection prevention,” “healthcare-associated infection,” or “standard precautions”). After deleting duplicates, the authors assessed titles and abstracts and included 250 research abstracts in this study. Using NetMiner 4.4 software (Cyram, Seoul, Korea), words from abstracts of published articles were extracted and refined, then text network analysis and topic modeling were performed. A text network was structured based on the co-occurrence matrix of key words (semantic morphemes) and was analyzed to identify the main key words. Through topic modeling using the Latent Dirichlet Allocation algorithm, latent topics in the research abstracts were extracted. The authors verified the key words comprising the topic and the result of classifying the documents by topic and named topics. Results: The number of studies, which increased following the outbreak of Middle East respiratory syndrome in 2015, has declined over time but peaked in 2021 with the COVID-19 pandemic. The text network composed of the key words of the research abstracts was generated and visualized (Fig. 1). As a result of text network analysis, the 5 most common key words were ‘nurse,’ ‘infection control,’ ‘nursing care,’ ‘practice,’ and ‘perception’ in terms of degree and betweenness centrality. Other prominent main keywords were also identified: ‘knowledge,’ ‘compliance,’ ‘education,’ ‘intervention,’ ‘intention,’ and ‘safety.’ With the application of topic modeling to the research abstracts, 5 topics were derived and named as follows (Fig. 2): “infection control in nursing care for patient safety,” “infection control measures for healthcare personnel safety,” “burdens and obstacles for infection control among nurses,” “infection control for multidrug-resistant organisms,” and “knowledge, attitude, practice for infection control among nurses.” Conclusions: By applying text-network analysis and topic modeling, we obtained insights into Korean ICN research trends. To explore global ICN research trends, further study is necessary to analyze internationally published studies reflecting each country’s nursing work conditions. Disclosure: None
{"title":"Overview of infection control in nursing research in Korea over the last 10 years: Text network analysis and topic modeling","authors":"EunJo Kim, JaHyun Kang","doi":"10.1017/ash.2023.228","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ash.2023.228","url":null,"abstract":"Background: With the emergence of new infectious diseases, infection control nursing (ICN) in hospitals has become increasingly significant. Consequently, research on ICN has been actively performed. We examined the knowledge structure and trends addressed in Korean ICN research. Methods: From 5 web-based Korean academic databases (DBpia, KISS, KMbase, KoreaMed, and RISS), 2,244 studies published between 2013 and 2022 were retrieved using ICN-related search terms (eg, “nurse” or “nursing” along with “infection control,” “infection prevention,” “healthcare-associated infection,” or “standard precautions”). After deleting duplicates, the authors assessed titles and abstracts and included 250 research abstracts in this study. Using NetMiner 4.4 software (Cyram, Seoul, Korea), words from abstracts of published articles were extracted and refined, then text network analysis and topic modeling were performed. A text network was structured based on the co-occurrence matrix of key words (semantic morphemes) and was analyzed to identify the main key words. Through topic modeling using the Latent Dirichlet Allocation algorithm, latent topics in the research abstracts were extracted. The authors verified the key words comprising the topic and the result of classifying the documents by topic and named topics. Results: The number of studies, which increased following the outbreak of Middle East respiratory syndrome in 2015, has declined over time but peaked in 2021 with the COVID-19 pandemic. The text network composed of the key words of the research abstracts was generated and visualized (Fig. 1). As a result of text network analysis, the 5 most common key words were ‘nurse,’ ‘infection control,’ ‘nursing care,’ ‘practice,’ and ‘perception’ in terms of degree and betweenness centrality. Other prominent main keywords were also identified: ‘knowledge,’ ‘compliance,’ ‘education,’ ‘intervention,’ ‘intention,’ and ‘safety.’ With the application of topic modeling to the research abstracts, 5 topics were derived and named as follows (Fig. 2): “infection control in nursing care for patient safety,” “infection control measures for healthcare personnel safety,” “burdens and obstacles for infection control among nurses,” “infection control for multidrug-resistant organisms,” and “knowledge, attitude, practice for infection control among nurses.” Conclusions: By applying text-network analysis and topic modeling, we obtained insights into Korean ICN research trends. To explore global ICN research trends, further study is necessary to analyze internationally published studies reflecting each country’s nursing work conditions. Disclosure: None","PeriodicalId":7953,"journal":{"name":"Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135144618","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Kathryn Willebrand, Jacqueline Fredrick, Lauren Pischel, Kavin Patel, Scott Roberts, Thomas Murray, Richard Martinello
Background: Recent evidence has shown that the updated COVID-19 bivalent booster is effective in preventing COVID-19 compared with no previous vaccination and prior monovalent vaccination. Despite its effectiveness, uptake has been poor, and a minority of eligible recipients have received the booster. Understanding healthcare worker (HCW) attitudes for and against voluntary uptake of the bivalent booster dose against COVID-19 can help guide communication strategy to maximize uptake. In this survey study, we investigated attitudes toward updated and/or bivalent booster uptake in a behavioral health hospital shortly after a COVID-19 outbreak. Methods: A survey tool was developed and sent to all HCWs at the Yale New Haven Psychiatric Hospital in December 2022. The survey queried demographic data, job category, history of COVID-19, prior COVID-19 vaccinations, perception of COVID-19 exposure, and updated and/or bivalent booster doses. The survey was administered several weeks after a COVID-19 outbreak on multiple inpatient behavioral health units. Receipt of the COVID-19 primary vaccination series and the first booster dose were mandated for HCWs; however, receipt of the bivalent booster was voluntary. Results: The survey was sent to 664 HCWs with primary assignments in behavioral health settings. In total, 182 (27.4%) provided complete responses to the survey and are included in these data. Moreover, 91 HCWs (50.0%) reported previously having COVID-19 at least once. Overall, 100 HCWs (55.0%) received the bivalent booster. The most identified reasons for receiving the bivalent booster were wanting to protect family and friends (n = 113), importance of staying healthy (n = 112), and protecting colleagues and patients (n = 103). The most identified reasons for not wanting to receive the bivalent booster dose were not thinking it provides additional protection (n = 33), “too many” shots already received (n = 31), and concern about side effects (n = 30). Discussion: Bivalent booster dose uptake in HCWs on behavioral health units shortly after a COVID-19 outbreak was greater than the general population. HCWs reported varying reasons for and against receipt of the bivalent booster dose, with the most common being protection of family and friends and perceptions of no additional protection, respectively. A limitation of this study was voluntary response bias, in which results are biased toward individuals more likely to receive a bivalent booster vaccine. It is unclear whether reasons for declining the vaccine are representative of HCWs who did not complete the survey. Assessing attitudes for the bivalent booster dose can assist in guiding communication and outreach strategies to increase vaccine uptake by HCWs. Disclosures: None
{"title":"Characterizing healthcare worker attitudes toward the bivalent COVID-19 booster","authors":"Kathryn Willebrand, Jacqueline Fredrick, Lauren Pischel, Kavin Patel, Scott Roberts, Thomas Murray, Richard Martinello","doi":"10.1017/ash.2023.300","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ash.2023.300","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Recent evidence has shown that the updated COVID-19 bivalent booster is effective in preventing COVID-19 compared with no previous vaccination and prior monovalent vaccination. Despite its effectiveness, uptake has been poor, and a minority of eligible recipients have received the booster. Understanding healthcare worker (HCW) attitudes for and against voluntary uptake of the bivalent booster dose against COVID-19 can help guide communication strategy to maximize uptake. In this survey study, we investigated attitudes toward updated and/or bivalent booster uptake in a behavioral health hospital shortly after a COVID-19 outbreak. Methods: A survey tool was developed and sent to all HCWs at the Yale New Haven Psychiatric Hospital in December 2022. The survey queried demographic data, job category, history of COVID-19, prior COVID-19 vaccinations, perception of COVID-19 exposure, and updated and/or bivalent booster doses. The survey was administered several weeks after a COVID-19 outbreak on multiple inpatient behavioral health units. Receipt of the COVID-19 primary vaccination series and the first booster dose were mandated for HCWs; however, receipt of the bivalent booster was voluntary. Results: The survey was sent to 664 HCWs with primary assignments in behavioral health settings. In total, 182 (27.4%) provided complete responses to the survey and are included in these data. Moreover, 91 HCWs (50.0%) reported previously having COVID-19 at least once. Overall, 100 HCWs (55.0%) received the bivalent booster. The most identified reasons for receiving the bivalent booster were wanting to protect family and friends (n = 113), importance of staying healthy (n = 112), and protecting colleagues and patients (n = 103). The most identified reasons for not wanting to receive the bivalent booster dose were not thinking it provides additional protection (n = 33), “too many” shots already received (n = 31), and concern about side effects (n = 30). Discussion: Bivalent booster dose uptake in HCWs on behavioral health units shortly after a COVID-19 outbreak was greater than the general population. HCWs reported varying reasons for and against receipt of the bivalent booster dose, with the most common being protection of family and friends and perceptions of no additional protection, respectively. A limitation of this study was voluntary response bias, in which results are biased toward individuals more likely to receive a bivalent booster vaccine. It is unclear whether reasons for declining the vaccine are representative of HCWs who did not complete the survey. Assessing attitudes for the bivalent booster dose can assist in guiding communication and outreach strategies to increase vaccine uptake by HCWs. Disclosures: None","PeriodicalId":7953,"journal":{"name":"Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135144744","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Morgan Morelli, Andrea Son, Yanis Bitar, Michelle Hecker
Background: Hospitalizations for diabetic foot infections and lower-extremity osteomyelitis are common. Use of empiric antibiotic therapy for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa is also common. Guidelines recommend antibiotic therapy based on severity of illness, risk factors for MRSA and P. aeruginosa , and local prevalence. We evaluated the concordance between empiric antibiotic therapy and both culture results and definitive antibiotic therapy with a focus on MRSA and P. aeruginosa . We also evaluated how well MRSA and pseudomonal risk factors were predictive of culture results with these organisms. Methods: We conducted a cohort study of all patients admitted to our hospital system in 2021 with a diagnosis of a diabetic foot infection or lower-extremity osteomyelitis. Patients were included if they had an International Classification of Disease, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) diagnosis code of M86, E10.621, E11.621, or E08.621. Patients were excluded if antibiotics were for another indication or if they were aged <18 years. In patients with multiple hospitalizations only the first hospitalization was included. Empiric antibiotic therapy included antibiotics started by the admitting team. Definitive antibiotic therapy included the final antibiotic course either completed during admission or prescribed at the time of discharge. MRSA risk factors included prior positive culture with MRSA within the last year, hospitalization with IV antibiotics within 90 days, intravenous drug use, or hemodialysis. Pseudomonal risk factors included prior positive culture with P. aeruginosa within the last year or hospitalization with IV antibiotics within 90 days. Results: In 2021, 260 unique patients were admitted with suspected diabetic foot infections or lower-extremity osteomyelitis. 68 patients had >1 admission. Empiric anti-MRSA and antipseudomonal therapy was administered to 224 (86%) and 214 (82%) patients, respectively. Definitive anti-MRSA and antipseudomonal therapy was administered to 76 (30%) and 51 (20%) patients, respectively. Of the 195 patients who had wound cultures, 29 (15%) and 18 (9%) had positive cultures for MRSA and P. aeruginosa respectively (Fig.). The negative predictive value of MRSA risk factors for predicting a negative culture with MRSA was 91%. The negative predictive value of pseudomonal risk factors for predicting a negative culture with P. aeruginosa was 95%. Conclusions: Our data suggest an opportunity for substantial reductions in empiric anti-MRSA and antipseudomonal therapy for diabetic foot infection and lower-extremity osteomyelitis. The absence of MRSA and pseudomonal risk factors was reasonably good at predicting the absence of a positive culture with these organisms. Disclosure: None
{"title":"Fear of missing organisms (FOMO): Diabetic foot and osteomyelitis management opportunities","authors":"Morgan Morelli, Andrea Son, Yanis Bitar, Michelle Hecker","doi":"10.1017/ash.2023.212","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ash.2023.212","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Hospitalizations for diabetic foot infections and lower-extremity osteomyelitis are common. Use of empiric antibiotic therapy for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa is also common. Guidelines recommend antibiotic therapy based on severity of illness, risk factors for MRSA and P. aeruginosa , and local prevalence. We evaluated the concordance between empiric antibiotic therapy and both culture results and definitive antibiotic therapy with a focus on MRSA and P. aeruginosa . We also evaluated how well MRSA and pseudomonal risk factors were predictive of culture results with these organisms. Methods: We conducted a cohort study of all patients admitted to our hospital system in 2021 with a diagnosis of a diabetic foot infection or lower-extremity osteomyelitis. Patients were included if they had an International Classification of Disease, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) diagnosis code of M86, E10.621, E11.621, or E08.621. Patients were excluded if antibiotics were for another indication or if they were aged <18 years. In patients with multiple hospitalizations only the first hospitalization was included. Empiric antibiotic therapy included antibiotics started by the admitting team. Definitive antibiotic therapy included the final antibiotic course either completed during admission or prescribed at the time of discharge. MRSA risk factors included prior positive culture with MRSA within the last year, hospitalization with IV antibiotics within 90 days, intravenous drug use, or hemodialysis. Pseudomonal risk factors included prior positive culture with P. aeruginosa within the last year or hospitalization with IV antibiotics within 90 days. Results: In 2021, 260 unique patients were admitted with suspected diabetic foot infections or lower-extremity osteomyelitis. 68 patients had >1 admission. Empiric anti-MRSA and antipseudomonal therapy was administered to 224 (86%) and 214 (82%) patients, respectively. Definitive anti-MRSA and antipseudomonal therapy was administered to 76 (30%) and 51 (20%) patients, respectively. Of the 195 patients who had wound cultures, 29 (15%) and 18 (9%) had positive cultures for MRSA and P. aeruginosa respectively (Fig.). The negative predictive value of MRSA risk factors for predicting a negative culture with MRSA was 91%. The negative predictive value of pseudomonal risk factors for predicting a negative culture with P. aeruginosa was 95%. Conclusions: Our data suggest an opportunity for substantial reductions in empiric anti-MRSA and antipseudomonal therapy for diabetic foot infection and lower-extremity osteomyelitis. The absence of MRSA and pseudomonal risk factors was reasonably good at predicting the absence of a positive culture with these organisms. Disclosure: None","PeriodicalId":7953,"journal":{"name":"Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology","volume":"128 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135144873","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Miranda Monk, Sarah Turbett, Christine Yang, Ramy Elshaboury
Background: Multidrug-resistant bacteria are of high concern, and empiric antimicrobial choice for infections caused by these pathogens, while awaiting susceptibilities, is increasingly encountered. We describe the susceptibility patterns of ceftazidime-avibactam (CZA), imipenem-rel-ebactam (I-R), meropenem-vaborbactam (MVB), cefiderocol (FDC), ceftolozone-tazobactam (C/T), minocycline (MIN), and tigecycline (TGC) for carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales at an academic medical center. Methods: We performed a single-center analysis of Enterobacterales isolates from 110 hospitalized adult patients who had CZA, I-R, MVB, FDC, MIN, or TGC susceptibility testing performed between October 2020 and September 2022. The study included 1 isolate per patient per infection site per year. Isolates were divided into carbapenem susceptible and non susceptible categories. For carbapenem nonsusceptible isolates, phenotypic confirmatory testing of carbapenem nonsusceptibility was performed using disk diffusion, gradient diffusion, and/or broth microdilution. Interpretive categories were applied using CLSI- or FDA-approved break-points where applicable. Carbapenemase testing was also performed using the modified carbapenem inactivation method (mCIM) and, where applicable, this testing was confirmed at the Massachusetts State Public Health Laboratory using genotypic methods. Results: In total, 125 unique isolates were reviewed: 34 meropenem-susceptible and 91 meropenem-intermediate or resistant isolates. CZA, I-R, MVB, and FDC were active against all tested meropenem-susceptible isolates; however, 50% of tested isolates were susceptible to C/T. MIN and TGC, when tested, were active against 2 of 11 isolates (18%) and 14 of 16 isolates (86%), respectively. Of 91 meropenem-nonsusceptible isolates, most tested isolates were susceptible to MVB (59 of 72, 82%), followed by CZA (63 of 82, 77%), I-R (8 of 11, 73%), FDC (9 of 16, 56%), and C/T (1 of 12, 8%). TGC retained activity against 78 of 81 (96%) tested isolates. In contrast, MIN retained activity against 8 of 45 isolates (18%). Additionally, all (28 of 28, 100%) isolates that were nonsusceptible to at least 1 novel agent (CZA, I-R, MVB, FDC, or C/T) remained susceptible to TGC. State laboratory confirmatory testing was available for 75 isolates. Of 43 mCIM-positive isolates, all 28 KPC-producing isolates were susceptible to CZA, I-R, MVB, FDC and TGC. Conclusions: Among Enterobacterales, CZA, MVB, and I-R retained activity against most non-NDM CRE isolates in this local analysis, with comparable susceptibilities. TGC demonstrated excellent susceptibility for CRE and meropenem-susceptible isolates, offering an alternative for nonbloodstream infections. Choice of empiric agent with a newβ-lactam, β-lactam–β-lactamase inhibitors, or TGC appear to be reasonable empiric therapeutic options at our institution. CT and MIN warrant confirmatory testing prior to use due to low susceptibility rates among meropenem nonsusceptibl
{"title":"Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales susceptibility patterns to new antimicrobials: A single-center analysis","authors":"Miranda Monk, Sarah Turbett, Christine Yang, Ramy Elshaboury","doi":"10.1017/ash.2023.337","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ash.2023.337","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Multidrug-resistant bacteria are of high concern, and empiric antimicrobial choice for infections caused by these pathogens, while awaiting susceptibilities, is increasingly encountered. We describe the susceptibility patterns of ceftazidime-avibactam (CZA), imipenem-rel-ebactam (I-R), meropenem-vaborbactam (MVB), cefiderocol (FDC), ceftolozone-tazobactam (C/T), minocycline (MIN), and tigecycline (TGC) for carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales at an academic medical center. Methods: We performed a single-center analysis of Enterobacterales isolates from 110 hospitalized adult patients who had CZA, I-R, MVB, FDC, MIN, or TGC susceptibility testing performed between October 2020 and September 2022. The study included 1 isolate per patient per infection site per year. Isolates were divided into carbapenem susceptible and non susceptible categories. For carbapenem nonsusceptible isolates, phenotypic confirmatory testing of carbapenem nonsusceptibility was performed using disk diffusion, gradient diffusion, and/or broth microdilution. Interpretive categories were applied using CLSI- or FDA-approved break-points where applicable. Carbapenemase testing was also performed using the modified carbapenem inactivation method (mCIM) and, where applicable, this testing was confirmed at the Massachusetts State Public Health Laboratory using genotypic methods. Results: In total, 125 unique isolates were reviewed: 34 meropenem-susceptible and 91 meropenem-intermediate or resistant isolates. CZA, I-R, MVB, and FDC were active against all tested meropenem-susceptible isolates; however, 50% of tested isolates were susceptible to C/T. MIN and TGC, when tested, were active against 2 of 11 isolates (18%) and 14 of 16 isolates (86%), respectively. Of 91 meropenem-nonsusceptible isolates, most tested isolates were susceptible to MVB (59 of 72, 82%), followed by CZA (63 of 82, 77%), I-R (8 of 11, 73%), FDC (9 of 16, 56%), and C/T (1 of 12, 8%). TGC retained activity against 78 of 81 (96%) tested isolates. In contrast, MIN retained activity against 8 of 45 isolates (18%). Additionally, all (28 of 28, 100%) isolates that were nonsusceptible to at least 1 novel agent (CZA, I-R, MVB, FDC, or C/T) remained susceptible to TGC. State laboratory confirmatory testing was available for 75 isolates. Of 43 mCIM-positive isolates, all 28 KPC-producing isolates were susceptible to CZA, I-R, MVB, FDC and TGC. Conclusions: Among Enterobacterales, CZA, MVB, and I-R retained activity against most non-NDM CRE isolates in this local analysis, with comparable susceptibilities. TGC demonstrated excellent susceptibility for CRE and meropenem-susceptible isolates, offering an alternative for nonbloodstream infections. Choice of empiric agent with a newβ-lactam, β-lactam–β-lactamase inhibitors, or TGC appear to be reasonable empiric therapeutic options at our institution. CT and MIN warrant confirmatory testing prior to use due to low susceptibility rates among meropenem nonsusceptibl","PeriodicalId":7953,"journal":{"name":"Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology","volume":"253 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135144997","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Background: The CDC’s new Public Health Strategies to Prevent the Spread of Novel and Targeted Multidrug-Resistant Organisms (MDROs) were informed by mathematical models that assessed the impact of implementing preventive strategies directed at a subset of healthcare facilities characterized as influential or highly connected based on their predicted role in the regional spread of MDROs. We developed an interactive tool to communicate mathematical modeling results and visualize the regional patient transfer network for public health departments and healthcare facilities to assist in planning and implementing prevention strategies. Methods: An interactive RShiny application is currently hosted in the CDC network and is accessible to external partners through the Secure Access Management Services (SAMS). Patient transfer volumes (direct and indirect, that is, with up to 30 days in the community between admissions) were estimated from the CMS fee-for-service claims data from 2019. The spread of a carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE)–like MDROs within a US state was simulated using a deterministic model with susceptible and infectious compartments in the community and healthcare facilities interconnected through patient transfers. Individuals determined to be infectious through admission screening, point-prevalence surveys (PPSs), or notified from interfacility communication were assigned lower transmissibility if enhanced infection prevention and control practices were in place at a facility. Results: The application consists of 4 interactive tabs. Users can visualize the statewide patient-sharing network for any US state and select territories in the first tab (Fig. 1). A feature allows users to highlight a facility of interest and display downstream or upstream facilities that received or sent transfers from the facility of interest, respectively. A second tab lists influential facilities to aid in prioritizing screening and prevention activities. A third tab lists all facilities in the state in descending order of their dispersal rate (ie, the rate at which patients are shared downstream to other facilities), which can help identify highly connected facilities. In the fourth tab, an interactive graph displays the predicted reduction of MDRO prevalence given a range of intervention scenarios (Fig. 2). Conclusions: Our RShiny application, which can be accessed by public health partners, can assist healthcare facilities and public health departments in planning and tailoring MDRO prevention activity bundles. Disclosures: None
{"title":"An interactive patient transfer network and model visualization tool for multidrug-resistant organism prevention strategies","authors":"Rany Octaria, Samuel Cincotta, Jessica Healy, Camden Gowler, Prabasaj Paul, Maroya Walters, Rachel Slayton","doi":"10.1017/ash.2023.403","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ash.2023.403","url":null,"abstract":"Background: The CDC’s new Public Health Strategies to Prevent the Spread of Novel and Targeted Multidrug-Resistant Organisms (MDROs) were informed by mathematical models that assessed the impact of implementing preventive strategies directed at a subset of healthcare facilities characterized as influential or highly connected based on their predicted role in the regional spread of MDROs. We developed an interactive tool to communicate mathematical modeling results and visualize the regional patient transfer network for public health departments and healthcare facilities to assist in planning and implementing prevention strategies. Methods: An interactive RShiny application is currently hosted in the CDC network and is accessible to external partners through the Secure Access Management Services (SAMS). Patient transfer volumes (direct and indirect, that is, with up to 30 days in the community between admissions) were estimated from the CMS fee-for-service claims data from 2019. The spread of a carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE)–like MDROs within a US state was simulated using a deterministic model with susceptible and infectious compartments in the community and healthcare facilities interconnected through patient transfers. Individuals determined to be infectious through admission screening, point-prevalence surveys (PPSs), or notified from interfacility communication were assigned lower transmissibility if enhanced infection prevention and control practices were in place at a facility. Results: The application consists of 4 interactive tabs. Users can visualize the statewide patient-sharing network for any US state and select territories in the first tab (Fig. 1). A feature allows users to highlight a facility of interest and display downstream or upstream facilities that received or sent transfers from the facility of interest, respectively. A second tab lists influential facilities to aid in prioritizing screening and prevention activities. A third tab lists all facilities in the state in descending order of their dispersal rate (ie, the rate at which patients are shared downstream to other facilities), which can help identify highly connected facilities. In the fourth tab, an interactive graph displays the predicted reduction of MDRO prevalence given a range of intervention scenarios (Fig. 2). Conclusions: Our RShiny application, which can be accessed by public health partners, can assist healthcare facilities and public health departments in planning and tailoring MDRO prevention activity bundles. Disclosures: None","PeriodicalId":7953,"journal":{"name":"Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135145003","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Hannah Wolford, Brandon Attell, James Baggs, Sujan Reddy, Sarah Kabbani, Melinda Neuhauser, Lauri Hicks
Background: Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a common indication for antibiotic prescribing in hospitalized patients. Professional societies’ clinical guidelines recommend specific antibiotics for empiric treatment of CAP based on clinical factors. Manual assessments of appropriateness are time-consuming and are often conducted on a smaller scale. We evaluated empiric antibiotic selection among a large cohort of adults hospitalized with CAP using electronic health records. Methods: In this study, we used the PINC-AI healthcare database to define a cohort of adults hospitalized with CAP from 2013 to 2020. CAP was identified by International Classification of Diseases (ICD) diagnosis codes. Exclusions were applied to identify uncomplicated CAP (Fig. 1). Treatment was only evaluated if a chest radiograph or computerized tomography (CT) scan was charged during the first 2 days of hospitalization, otherwise it was considered an inadequate CAP evaluation. Administrative billing data were used to identify antibiotics charged within the first 2 days of hospitalization. Empiric guideline-recommended treatment was determined based on 2019 CAP guidelines and more recent studies. Patients who received nonrecommended treatment were evaluated for antibiotic allergies in the current hospitalization or methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonization or infection in the year prior or on admission using International Classification of Disease, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) diagnosis codes. Results: We identified 4.47 million adult hospitalizations with CAP from 2013 to 2020; 32% (1.43 million) were included in this analysis (Fig. 1). Among discharges with adequate CAP evaluation (1.37 million), 59.7% received recommended antibiotics in the first 2 days of hospitalization, ranging from 62.6% in 2013 to 57.5% in 2019. Overall, 34.8% of our study population received a nonrecommended antibiotic without documentation of an antibiotic allergy or MRSA colonization (2013: 32.5%; 2018: 36.7%) (Fig. 2). Most patients in our study population received >1 antibiotic (92.3%) in the first 2 days of hospitalization. The most common antibiotics among patients receiving recommended treatment were ceftriaxone (74.2% of patients receiving recommended treatment), azithromycin (67.2%), and levofloxacin (31.8%) (Fig. 3a). The most common nonrecommended antibiotics were vancomycin (57.2% of patients receiving nonrecommended treatment), piperacillin-tazobactam (48.1%), and cefepime (25.7%) (Fig. 3b). From 2013 to 2020, cefepime charges consistently increased among CAP patients treated with nonrecommended antibiotics, whereas levofloxacin charges consistently decreased among CAP patients treated with only recommended antibiotics. Conclusions: Approximately one-third of patients with uncomplicated CAP received nonrecommended empiric antibiotics, and from 2013 to 2020 that proportion increased by 9%. Additional strategies are needed to help identify opportunities to optimiz
{"title":"Empiric antibiotic selection for community-acquired pneumonia in US hospitals, 2013–2020","authors":"Hannah Wolford, Brandon Attell, James Baggs, Sujan Reddy, Sarah Kabbani, Melinda Neuhauser, Lauri Hicks","doi":"10.1017/ash.2023.249","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ash.2023.249","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a common indication for antibiotic prescribing in hospitalized patients. Professional societies’ clinical guidelines recommend specific antibiotics for empiric treatment of CAP based on clinical factors. Manual assessments of appropriateness are time-consuming and are often conducted on a smaller scale. We evaluated empiric antibiotic selection among a large cohort of adults hospitalized with CAP using electronic health records. Methods: In this study, we used the PINC-AI healthcare database to define a cohort of adults hospitalized with CAP from 2013 to 2020. CAP was identified by International Classification of Diseases (ICD) diagnosis codes. Exclusions were applied to identify uncomplicated CAP (Fig. 1). Treatment was only evaluated if a chest radiograph or computerized tomography (CT) scan was charged during the first 2 days of hospitalization, otherwise it was considered an inadequate CAP evaluation. Administrative billing data were used to identify antibiotics charged within the first 2 days of hospitalization. Empiric guideline-recommended treatment was determined based on 2019 CAP guidelines and more recent studies. Patients who received nonrecommended treatment were evaluated for antibiotic allergies in the current hospitalization or methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonization or infection in the year prior or on admission using International Classification of Disease, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) diagnosis codes. Results: We identified 4.47 million adult hospitalizations with CAP from 2013 to 2020; 32% (1.43 million) were included in this analysis (Fig. 1). Among discharges with adequate CAP evaluation (1.37 million), 59.7% received recommended antibiotics in the first 2 days of hospitalization, ranging from 62.6% in 2013 to 57.5% in 2019. Overall, 34.8% of our study population received a nonrecommended antibiotic without documentation of an antibiotic allergy or MRSA colonization (2013: 32.5%; 2018: 36.7%) (Fig. 2). Most patients in our study population received >1 antibiotic (92.3%) in the first 2 days of hospitalization. The most common antibiotics among patients receiving recommended treatment were ceftriaxone (74.2% of patients receiving recommended treatment), azithromycin (67.2%), and levofloxacin (31.8%) (Fig. 3a). The most common nonrecommended antibiotics were vancomycin (57.2% of patients receiving nonrecommended treatment), piperacillin-tazobactam (48.1%), and cefepime (25.7%) (Fig. 3b). From 2013 to 2020, cefepime charges consistently increased among CAP patients treated with nonrecommended antibiotics, whereas levofloxacin charges consistently decreased among CAP patients treated with only recommended antibiotics. Conclusions: Approximately one-third of patients with uncomplicated CAP received nonrecommended empiric antibiotics, and from 2013 to 2020 that proportion increased by 9%. Additional strategies are needed to help identify opportunities to optimiz","PeriodicalId":7953,"journal":{"name":"Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135145023","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jennifer Sanguinet, Gerard Marshall, Julia Moody, Kenneth Sands
Background: Candida auris is an emerging pathogen that exhibits broad antimicrobial resistance and causes highly morbid infections. Prolonged survival on surfaces has been demonstrated, and standard disinfectants may not achieve adequate disinfection. Persistent patient colonization and constant environmental recontamination poses an infection risk that may be mitigated by no touch disinfection systems. We evaluated the efficacy of continuous dry hydrogen peroxide (DHP) exposure on C. auris environmental contamination. Methods: The study was conducted in a large tertiary-care center where multiple patients were identified as either infected or colonized with C. auris . DHP-emitting systems were installed in the ventilation systems dedicated to the adult burn intensive care and children’s cardiac intensive care units. Composite surface samples were collected in a sample of patient rooms and shared clinical workspaces among units with current C. auris patients, before and after installation of the DHP system, and from areas with and without exposure to DHP. The samples included “high touch” surfaces near the patient, the general area of the patient room, shared medical equipment for the unit, shared staff work areas, and equipment dedicated to individual staff members (Table 1). Presence of C. auris was determined by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Association between DHP exposure and C. auris contamination was determined using the Fisher exact test. Results: In the presence of C. auris patients, 5 baseline samples per unit were taken before DHP was installed, and then 5 samples per unit were taken on days 7, 14, and 28 after installation. Prior to initiation of DHP, 7 (70%) of 10 samples were PCR positive for C. auris . After DHP installation, a statistically significant decrease to 5 (16.7%) of 30 samples ( P <.05) was observed. In total, 20 samples (5 before installation and 15 after installation) were collected from units without DHP on the same days. At baseline, 2 (40%) of 5 samples were PCR positive for C. auris . During subsequent periods, 4 (27%) 15 samples were positive ( P = .66). No adverse effects were reported by patients, visitors, or personnel in association with the operation of the DHP systems. Conclusions: These findings suggest that DHP is effective in reducing surface C. auris contamination in a variety of patient and healthcare worker surfaces. Disclosures: None
{"title":"Effect of dry hydrogen peroxide on <i>Candida auris</i> environmental contamination","authors":"Jennifer Sanguinet, Gerard Marshall, Julia Moody, Kenneth Sands","doi":"10.1017/ash.2023.316","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ash.2023.316","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Candida auris is an emerging pathogen that exhibits broad antimicrobial resistance and causes highly morbid infections. Prolonged survival on surfaces has been demonstrated, and standard disinfectants may not achieve adequate disinfection. Persistent patient colonization and constant environmental recontamination poses an infection risk that may be mitigated by no touch disinfection systems. We evaluated the efficacy of continuous dry hydrogen peroxide (DHP) exposure on C. auris environmental contamination. Methods: The study was conducted in a large tertiary-care center where multiple patients were identified as either infected or colonized with C. auris . DHP-emitting systems were installed in the ventilation systems dedicated to the adult burn intensive care and children’s cardiac intensive care units. Composite surface samples were collected in a sample of patient rooms and shared clinical workspaces among units with current C. auris patients, before and after installation of the DHP system, and from areas with and without exposure to DHP. The samples included “high touch” surfaces near the patient, the general area of the patient room, shared medical equipment for the unit, shared staff work areas, and equipment dedicated to individual staff members (Table 1). Presence of C. auris was determined by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Association between DHP exposure and C. auris contamination was determined using the Fisher exact test. Results: In the presence of C. auris patients, 5 baseline samples per unit were taken before DHP was installed, and then 5 samples per unit were taken on days 7, 14, and 28 after installation. Prior to initiation of DHP, 7 (70%) of 10 samples were PCR positive for C. auris . After DHP installation, a statistically significant decrease to 5 (16.7%) of 30 samples ( P <.05) was observed. In total, 20 samples (5 before installation and 15 after installation) were collected from units without DHP on the same days. At baseline, 2 (40%) of 5 samples were PCR positive for C. auris . During subsequent periods, 4 (27%) 15 samples were positive ( P = .66). No adverse effects were reported by patients, visitors, or personnel in association with the operation of the DHP systems. Conclusions: These findings suggest that DHP is effective in reducing surface C. auris contamination in a variety of patient and healthcare worker surfaces. Disclosures: None","PeriodicalId":7953,"journal":{"name":"Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135145127","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Ian Hennessee, Kaitlin Forsberg, Susan E. Beekmann, Philip Polgreen, Jeremy Gold, Meghan Lyman
Background: Candida auris , an emerging fungal pathogen, is frequently drug resistant and spreads rapidly in healthcare facilities. Screening to identify patients colonized with C. auris can prevent further spread by prompting aggressive infection prevention and control measures. The CDC recommends C. auris screening based on local epidemiological conditions, patient characteristics, and facility-level risk factors; such screening might help facilities in higher burden areas to mitigate transmission and those in lower-burden areas to detect new introductions before spread begins. To describe US screening practices and challenges, we surveyed a network of infection disease practitioners, comparing responses by local C. auris case burdens. Methods: In August 2022, we emailed a survey about C. auris screening practices to ~3,000 members of the IDSA Emerging Infection Network. We describe survey results, stratifying findings by whether the healthcare facility was in a region where C. auris is frequently identified (tier 3 facility) or not frequently identified (tier 2 facility), based on CDC assessment using existing multidrug-resistant organism containment guidance (https://www.cdc.gov/hai/containment/guidelines.html). Results: We received 253 responses (tier 3 facilities: 119, tier 2 facilities: 134); overall, 37% performed screening. Tier 3 facilities more frequently performed screening than tier 2 facilities (59% vs 17%). Among facilities that performed screening, tier 3 facilities, compared with tier 2 facilities, more frequently screened patients on admission (84% vs 55%) and used an in-house laboratory for testing (68% vs 29%), most often with culture-based methods. Tier 2 facilities more frequently screened patients already admitted in the facility (eg, in response to cases or as part of point-prevalence surveys) compared with tier 3 facilities (59% vs 49%). Among facilities performing screening, 72% had identified ≥1 case in the previous year (tier 3 facilities, 85%; tier 2 facilities, 33%). Barriers to screening included limited laboratory capacity, long testing turnaround times, and the perception that screening was not useful. Conclusions: Most facilities surveyed did not perform C. auris screening. However, most facilities that performed screening, including those in regions of higher and lower C. auris burden, detected cases during the previous year. Admission screening, which might help detect new introductions before spread begins, was uncommon in facilities in lower-burden areas. Improving ease of C. auris screening through access to in-house laboratory testing with rapid turnaround times might increase the adoption of C. auris screening by facilities, thereby increasing detection and preventing spread. Disclosures: None
{"title":"<i>Candida auris</i> screening practices at healthcare facilities in the United States: A survey of the Emerging Infections Network","authors":"Ian Hennessee, Kaitlin Forsberg, Susan E. Beekmann, Philip Polgreen, Jeremy Gold, Meghan Lyman","doi":"10.1017/ash.2023.371","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ash.2023.371","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Candida auris , an emerging fungal pathogen, is frequently drug resistant and spreads rapidly in healthcare facilities. Screening to identify patients colonized with C. auris can prevent further spread by prompting aggressive infection prevention and control measures. The CDC recommends C. auris screening based on local epidemiological conditions, patient characteristics, and facility-level risk factors; such screening might help facilities in higher burden areas to mitigate transmission and those in lower-burden areas to detect new introductions before spread begins. To describe US screening practices and challenges, we surveyed a network of infection disease practitioners, comparing responses by local C. auris case burdens. Methods: In August 2022, we emailed a survey about C. auris screening practices to ~3,000 members of the IDSA Emerging Infection Network. We describe survey results, stratifying findings by whether the healthcare facility was in a region where C. auris is frequently identified (tier 3 facility) or not frequently identified (tier 2 facility), based on CDC assessment using existing multidrug-resistant organism containment guidance (https://www.cdc.gov/hai/containment/guidelines.html). Results: We received 253 responses (tier 3 facilities: 119, tier 2 facilities: 134); overall, 37% performed screening. Tier 3 facilities more frequently performed screening than tier 2 facilities (59% vs 17%). Among facilities that performed screening, tier 3 facilities, compared with tier 2 facilities, more frequently screened patients on admission (84% vs 55%) and used an in-house laboratory for testing (68% vs 29%), most often with culture-based methods. Tier 2 facilities more frequently screened patients already admitted in the facility (eg, in response to cases or as part of point-prevalence surveys) compared with tier 3 facilities (59% vs 49%). Among facilities performing screening, 72% had identified ≥1 case in the previous year (tier 3 facilities, 85%; tier 2 facilities, 33%). Barriers to screening included limited laboratory capacity, long testing turnaround times, and the perception that screening was not useful. Conclusions: Most facilities surveyed did not perform C. auris screening. However, most facilities that performed screening, including those in regions of higher and lower C. auris burden, detected cases during the previous year. Admission screening, which might help detect new introductions before spread begins, was uncommon in facilities in lower-burden areas. Improving ease of C. auris screening through access to in-house laboratory testing with rapid turnaround times might increase the adoption of C. auris screening by facilities, thereby increasing detection and preventing spread. Disclosures: None","PeriodicalId":7953,"journal":{"name":"Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135145143","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Background: A sustainable, continuous supply of alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) is essential for healthcare workers in health facilities. The WHO provides guidance for production in individual health facilities. In Uganda, using this guidance, an innovative approach was implemented at the district local government level to produce and subsequently distribute ABHR to primary-care health facilities that have limited capacity for local facility-level production. This project was supported by the CDC in collaboration with the Infectious Diseases Institute (IDI) and targeted governmental or district engagement with local partners to ensure sustainability. Methods: District stakeholders were engaged to obtain buy-in and define roles and responsibilities. Overall, 4 staff members in each of 6 supported districts were nominated by District Health Officers for training: 2 staff members were trained to produce ABHR and conduct internal quality control and 2 were trained on external quality control. Districts provided ABHR production-unit facilities and facilitated integration within the government essential supplies delivery system, National Medical Stores in Uganda, which supports last-mile delivery to facilities. An implementing partner purchased initial raw materials necessary for production. The cost of materials for local production was compared to the price of commercial ABHR available in Uganda. Results: Between January and August 2021, 23 staff members were trained, and 380 batches of quality-assured ABHR (17,820 L) were produced and distributed to 278 health facilities. Consumption of ABHR in the first distribution was used to benchmark predicted ABHR consumption per targeted facility in subsequent months. Increased demand for ABHR due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the Ebola virus disease outbreak in central Uganda (September 2022) was addressed through emergency requests on a case-by-case basis. ABHR local production costs $3 per liter for materials, less than half of commercial ABHR ($8 per liter). Conclusions: Early results suggest that this approach is potentially sustainable but requires national advocacy as well. Leveraging existing distribution systems while building local capacity for ABHR production and distribution may improve longevity of such innovations in similar resource-limited settings. Disclosure: None
{"title":"Approach for sustainable district-led production and distribution of alcohol-based hand rub in Uganda","authors":"Maureen Kesande","doi":"10.1017/ash.2023.224","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ash.2023.224","url":null,"abstract":"Background: A sustainable, continuous supply of alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) is essential for healthcare workers in health facilities. The WHO provides guidance for production in individual health facilities. In Uganda, using this guidance, an innovative approach was implemented at the district local government level to produce and subsequently distribute ABHR to primary-care health facilities that have limited capacity for local facility-level production. This project was supported by the CDC in collaboration with the Infectious Diseases Institute (IDI) and targeted governmental or district engagement with local partners to ensure sustainability. Methods: District stakeholders were engaged to obtain buy-in and define roles and responsibilities. Overall, 4 staff members in each of 6 supported districts were nominated by District Health Officers for training: 2 staff members were trained to produce ABHR and conduct internal quality control and 2 were trained on external quality control. Districts provided ABHR production-unit facilities and facilitated integration within the government essential supplies delivery system, National Medical Stores in Uganda, which supports last-mile delivery to facilities. An implementing partner purchased initial raw materials necessary for production. The cost of materials for local production was compared to the price of commercial ABHR available in Uganda. Results: Between January and August 2021, 23 staff members were trained, and 380 batches of quality-assured ABHR (17,820 L) were produced and distributed to 278 health facilities. Consumption of ABHR in the first distribution was used to benchmark predicted ABHR consumption per targeted facility in subsequent months. Increased demand for ABHR due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the Ebola virus disease outbreak in central Uganda (September 2022) was addressed through emergency requests on a case-by-case basis. ABHR local production costs $3 per liter for materials, less than half of commercial ABHR ($8 per liter). Conclusions: Early results suggest that this approach is potentially sustainable but requires national advocacy as well. Leveraging existing distribution systems while building local capacity for ABHR production and distribution may improve longevity of such innovations in similar resource-limited settings. Disclosure: None","PeriodicalId":7953,"journal":{"name":"Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135145150","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：