COVID-19在急性精神科爆发-独特的挑战和创造性的解决方案

Supriya Narasimhan, Sherilyn Oribello, Laura Tang, Tracey Stoll, Vidya Mony
{"title":"COVID-19在急性精神科爆发-独特的挑战和创造性的解决方案","authors":"Supriya Narasimhan, Sherilyn Oribello, Laura Tang, Tracey Stoll, Vidya Mony","doi":"10.1017/ash.2023.361","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: We describe the management of a major COVID-19 outbreak in January 2022 during the SARS-CoV-2 omicron-variant winter surge involving the only inpatient psychiatric facility of Santa Clara County, California, which serves a population of 1.9 million. Methods: On January 14, 2022, infection prevention staff were notified of a symptomatic COVID-19 case in our locked inpatient psychiatric unit who had been admitted since October 2021. The index patient had no visitors or transfers outside the unit. The patients in this unit were noncompliant with masking and mingled with each other during meals. Initial testing identified 23 positive cases among 47 patients and 12 staff cases. Mitigating actions included closing the unit to new admissions, creating alternate care areas in the emergency psychiatric unit, and separating patients into “exposed but negative” and “infected” cohorts and housing them in “red,” and “yellow” zones, respectively. A “green” zone was created by clearance of positive cases. For the cohort exposed to COVID-19, masking was enforced by supervision, dining was scheduled in batches, and daily symptom screening and antigen testing were performed in addition to standard postexposure RT-PCR testing on day 4 and day 7. Mandatory N95 respirators and eye protection were implemented for staff on unit entry. Exposed staff followed employee health protocols for postexposure testing. Enhanced environmental control measures included terminal cleaning and UV-C disinfection of common areas and patient rooms and a thorough investigation of airflow. Discharged patients were contacted if they were residing in congregate facilities. Results: Of 47 patients, 39 (83%) tested positive for COVID-19. However, 8 patients remained negative; all 8 had received at least their primary vaccine series (Table 1). In total, 16 HCWs were SARS-CoV-2 positive in this outbreak. The outbreak officially ended 25 days after the first case. All SARS-CoV-2–positive patients had mild illness, not requiring treatment or hospitalization. We identified vaccine immune escape, staff presenteeism, patient noncompliance with masking, and comingling as major causes of transmission. We determined through contact tracing and temporality that the outbreak likely started from a positive staff member or visitor because most patients had been long-term residents. Conclusions: This outbreak was challenging due to the specialized behavioral needs of the involved patients. It was imperative to reopen this unit quickly and safely to provide psychiatric care to our county’s most vulnerable patients. Ongoing PPE education, repeated reinforcement, engagement in staff wellness to combat pandemic fatigue, and aggressive vaccination are all crucial to minimizing the impact of future outbreaks. Disclosures: None","PeriodicalId":7953,"journal":{"name":"Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology","volume":"68 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"COVID-19 outbreak in an acute psychiatric unit—Unique challenges and creative solutions\",\"authors\":\"Supriya Narasimhan, Sherilyn Oribello, Laura Tang, Tracey Stoll, Vidya Mony\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/ash.2023.361\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: We describe the management of a major COVID-19 outbreak in January 2022 during the SARS-CoV-2 omicron-variant winter surge involving the only inpatient psychiatric facility of Santa Clara County, California, which serves a population of 1.9 million. Methods: On January 14, 2022, infection prevention staff were notified of a symptomatic COVID-19 case in our locked inpatient psychiatric unit who had been admitted since October 2021. The index patient had no visitors or transfers outside the unit. The patients in this unit were noncompliant with masking and mingled with each other during meals. Initial testing identified 23 positive cases among 47 patients and 12 staff cases. Mitigating actions included closing the unit to new admissions, creating alternate care areas in the emergency psychiatric unit, and separating patients into “exposed but negative” and “infected” cohorts and housing them in “red,” and “yellow” zones, respectively. A “green” zone was created by clearance of positive cases. For the cohort exposed to COVID-19, masking was enforced by supervision, dining was scheduled in batches, and daily symptom screening and antigen testing were performed in addition to standard postexposure RT-PCR testing on day 4 and day 7. Mandatory N95 respirators and eye protection were implemented for staff on unit entry. Exposed staff followed employee health protocols for postexposure testing. Enhanced environmental control measures included terminal cleaning and UV-C disinfection of common areas and patient rooms and a thorough investigation of airflow. Discharged patients were contacted if they were residing in congregate facilities. Results: Of 47 patients, 39 (83%) tested positive for COVID-19. However, 8 patients remained negative; all 8 had received at least their primary vaccine series (Table 1). In total, 16 HCWs were SARS-CoV-2 positive in this outbreak. The outbreak officially ended 25 days after the first case. All SARS-CoV-2–positive patients had mild illness, not requiring treatment or hospitalization. We identified vaccine immune escape, staff presenteeism, patient noncompliance with masking, and comingling as major causes of transmission. We determined through contact tracing and temporality that the outbreak likely started from a positive staff member or visitor because most patients had been long-term residents. Conclusions: This outbreak was challenging due to the specialized behavioral needs of the involved patients. It was imperative to reopen this unit quickly and safely to provide psychiatric care to our county’s most vulnerable patients. Ongoing PPE education, repeated reinforcement, engagement in staff wellness to combat pandemic fatigue, and aggressive vaccination are all crucial to minimizing the impact of future outbreaks. Disclosures: None\",\"PeriodicalId\":7953,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology\",\"volume\":\"68 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/ash.2023.361\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ash.2023.361","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:我们描述了2022年1月在SARS-CoV-2基因组变异冬季高峰期间发生的一次重大COVID-19暴发的管理,涉及加利福尼亚州圣克拉拉县唯一的住院精神病院,该机构为190万人口提供服务。方法:2022年1月14日,感染预防工作人员报告了一名自2021年10月以来入住的锁定精神科有症状的COVID-19病例。索引病人没有访客,也没有转到病房外。本单位患者不遵医嘱,进餐时相互搀杂。初步检测在47名患者和12名工作人员中发现23例阳性病例。缓解措施包括关闭新入院的病房,在紧急精神科病房设立替代护理区,将患者分为“暴露但阴性”和“感染”两组,并分别将他们安置在“红色”和“黄色”区域。通过清除阳性病例,建立了一个“绿色”区。对于暴露于COVID-19的队列,在监督下强制掩蔽,分批安排用餐,除了在第4天和第7天进行标准暴露后RT-PCR检测外,还进行每日症状筛查和抗原检测。对进入单位的工作人员强制实施N95呼吸器和护眼。受接触的员工遵循雇员健康协议进行接触后检测。加强的环境管制措施包括终端机清洁和公共区域及病房的紫外线消毒,以及彻底调查气流。如果出院患者居住在聚集设施,则联系他们。结果:在47例患者中,39例(83%)检测出COVID-19阳性。8例仍为阴性;所有8名患者均至少接种了一次疫苗系列(表1)。在本次疫情中,共有16名卫生保健工作者呈SARS-CoV-2阳性。在出现第一例病例25天后,疫情正式结束。所有sars - cov -2阳性患者病情轻微,不需要治疗或住院。我们确定了疫苗免疫逃逸、工作人员出勤、患者不遵守掩蔽和混进是传播的主要原因。我们通过接触者追踪和时间性确定,疫情可能是从一名阳性的工作人员或访客开始的,因为大多数患者都是长期居民。结论:由于涉及患者的特殊行为需求,本次暴发具有挑战性。必须尽快安全地重新开放这个部门,为我们国家最脆弱的病人提供精神治疗。持续的个人防护装备教育、不断加强、参与工作人员健康以对抗大流行疲劳,以及积极接种疫苗,对于尽量减少未来疫情的影响都至关重要。披露:没有
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
COVID-19 outbreak in an acute psychiatric unit—Unique challenges and creative solutions
Background: We describe the management of a major COVID-19 outbreak in January 2022 during the SARS-CoV-2 omicron-variant winter surge involving the only inpatient psychiatric facility of Santa Clara County, California, which serves a population of 1.9 million. Methods: On January 14, 2022, infection prevention staff were notified of a symptomatic COVID-19 case in our locked inpatient psychiatric unit who had been admitted since October 2021. The index patient had no visitors or transfers outside the unit. The patients in this unit were noncompliant with masking and mingled with each other during meals. Initial testing identified 23 positive cases among 47 patients and 12 staff cases. Mitigating actions included closing the unit to new admissions, creating alternate care areas in the emergency psychiatric unit, and separating patients into “exposed but negative” and “infected” cohorts and housing them in “red,” and “yellow” zones, respectively. A “green” zone was created by clearance of positive cases. For the cohort exposed to COVID-19, masking was enforced by supervision, dining was scheduled in batches, and daily symptom screening and antigen testing were performed in addition to standard postexposure RT-PCR testing on day 4 and day 7. Mandatory N95 respirators and eye protection were implemented for staff on unit entry. Exposed staff followed employee health protocols for postexposure testing. Enhanced environmental control measures included terminal cleaning and UV-C disinfection of common areas and patient rooms and a thorough investigation of airflow. Discharged patients were contacted if they were residing in congregate facilities. Results: Of 47 patients, 39 (83%) tested positive for COVID-19. However, 8 patients remained negative; all 8 had received at least their primary vaccine series (Table 1). In total, 16 HCWs were SARS-CoV-2 positive in this outbreak. The outbreak officially ended 25 days after the first case. All SARS-CoV-2–positive patients had mild illness, not requiring treatment or hospitalization. We identified vaccine immune escape, staff presenteeism, patient noncompliance with masking, and comingling as major causes of transmission. We determined through contact tracing and temporality that the outbreak likely started from a positive staff member or visitor because most patients had been long-term residents. Conclusions: This outbreak was challenging due to the specialized behavioral needs of the involved patients. It was imperative to reopen this unit quickly and safely to provide psychiatric care to our county’s most vulnerable patients. Ongoing PPE education, repeated reinforcement, engagement in staff wellness to combat pandemic fatigue, and aggressive vaccination are all crucial to minimizing the impact of future outbreaks. Disclosures: None
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Using whole genome sequencing to characterize Clostridioides difficile isolates at a tertiary center in Melbourne, Australia Influenza outbreak management tabletop exercise for congregate living settings Bring it on again: antimicrobial stewardship in transplant infectious diseases: updates and new challenges Professor Mahmood Bhutta on disrupting unhealthy supply chains and promoting environmental sustainability in health care Oral amoxicillin challenges for low-risk penicillin-allergic patients at a large Veterans Affairs facility: a retrospective feasibility analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1