Gloves and gowns are used during patient care to reduce contamination of personnel and prevent pathogen transmission.

To determine whether the use of gowns adds a substantial benefit over gloves alone in preventing patient-to-patient transfer of a viral DNA surrogate marker.

In total, 30 source patients had 1 cauliflower mosaic virus surrogate marker applied to their skin and clothing and a second to their bed rail and bedside table. Personnel caring for the source patients were randomized to wear gloves, gloves plus cover gowns, or no barrier. Interactions with up to 7 subsequent patients were observed, and the percentages of transfer of the DNA markers were compared among the 3 groups.

In comparison to the no-barrier group (57.8% transfer of 1 or both markers), there were significant reductions in transfer of the DNA markers in the gloves group (31.1% transfer; odds ratio [OR], 0.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02-0.73) and the gloves-plus-gown group (25.9% transfer; OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.01–0.51). The addition of a cover gown to gloves during the interaction with the source patient did not significantly reduce the transfer of the DNA marker (P = .53). During subsequent patient interactions, transfer of the DNA markers was significantly reduced if gloves plus gowns were worn and if hand hygiene was performed (P < .05).

Wearing gloves or gloves plus gowns reduced the frequency of patient-to-patient transfer of a viral DNA surrogate marker. The use of gloves plus gowns during interactions with the source patient did not reduce transfer in comparison to gloves alone.

Extensive environmental contamination by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been reported in hospitals during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We report our experience with the practice of directly observed environmental disinfection (DOED) in a community isolation facility (CIF) and a community treatment facility (CTF) in Hong Kong.

The CIF, with 250 single-room bungalows in a holiday camp, opened on July 24, 2020, to receive step-down patients from hospitals. The CTF, with 500 beds in open cubicles inside a convention hall, was activated on August 1, 2020, to admit newly diagnosed COVID-19 patients from the community. Healthcare workers (HCWs) and cleaning staff received infection control training to reinforce donning and doffing of personal protective equipment and to understand the practice of DOED, in which the cleaning staff observed patient and staff activities and then performed environmental disinfection immediately thereafter. Supervisors also observed cleaning staff to ensure the quality of work. In the CTF, air and environmental samples were collected on days 7, 14, 21, and 28 for SARS-CoV-2 detection by RT-PCR. Patient compliance with mask wearing was also recorded.

Of 291 HCWs and 54 cleaning staff who managed 243 patients in the CIF and 674 patients in the CTF from July 24 to August 29, 2020, no one acquired COVID-19. All 24 air samples and 520 environmental samples collected in the patient area of the CTF were negative for SARS-CoV-2. Patient compliance with mask wearing was 100%.

With appropriate infection control measures, zero environmental contamination and nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to HCWs and cleaning staff was achieved.

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.

We assessed the magnitude of unidentified coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in our healthcare personnel (HCP) early in the COVID-19 pandemic, and we evaluated risk factors for infection to identify areas for improvement in infection control practice in a northern California academic medical center.

We reviewed anti–severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) receptor-binding domain (RBD) IgG serologic test results and self-reported risk factors for seropositivity among 10,449 asymptomatic HCP who underwent voluntary serology testing between April 20 and May 20, 2020.

In total, 136 employees (1.3%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 IgG. This included 41 individuals (30.1%) who had previously tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by nasopharyngeal reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) between March 13 and April 16, 2020. In multivariable analysis, employees of Hispanic ethnicity (odds ratio [OR], 2.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.22–3.46) and those working in environmental services, food services, or patient transport (OR, 4.81; 95% CI, 2.08–10.30) were at increased risk for seropositivity compared to other groups. Employees reporting a household contact with COVID-19 were also at higher risk for seropositivity (OR, 3.25; 95% CI, 1.47–6.44), but those with a work, exposure alone were not (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.58–2.47). Importantly, one-third of seropositive individuals reported no prior symptoms, no suspected exposures, and no prior positive RT-PCR test.

In this study, SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity among HCP early in the northern California epidemic appeared to be quite low and was more likely attributable to community rather than occupational exposure.

Care homes are vulnerable to widespread transmission of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) with poor outcomes for staff and residents. Infection control interventions in care homes need to not only be effective in containing the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) but also feasible to implement in this special setting which is both a healthcare institution and a home.

We developed an agent-based model that simulates the transmission dynamics of COVID-19 via contacts between individuals, including residents, staff members, and visitors in a care home setting. We explored a representative care home in Scotland in our base case and explore other care home setups in an uncertainty analysis. We evaluated the effectiveness of a range of intervention strategies in controlling the spread of COVID-19.

In the presence of the reference interventions that have been implemented in many care homes, including testing of new admissions, isolation of symptomatic residents, and restricted public visiting, routine testing of staff appears to be the most effective and practical approach. Routine testing of residents is no more effective as a reference strategy while routine testing of both staff and residents only shows a negligible additive effect. Modeling results are very sensitive to transmission probability per contact, but the qualitative finding is robust to varying parameter values in our uncertainty analysis.

Our model predictions suggest that routine testing should target staff in care homes in conjunction with adherence to strict hand hygiene and using personal protective equipment to reduce risk of transmission per contact.

To identify factors that increase the microbial load in the operating room (OR) and recommend solutions to minimize the effect of these factors.

Observation and sampling study.

Academic health center, public hospitals.

We analyzed 4 videotaped orthopedic surgeries (15 hours in total) for door openings and staff movement. The data were translated into a script denoting a representative frequency and location of movements for each OR team member. These activities were then simulated for 30 minutes per trial in a functional operating room by the researchers re-enacting OR staff-member roles, while collecting bacteria and fungi using settle plates. To test the hypotheses on the influence of activity on microbial load, an experimental design was created in which each factor was tested at higher (and lower) than normal activity settings for a 30-minute period. These trials were conducted in 2 phases.

The frequency of door opening did not independently affect the microbial load in the OR. However, a longer duration and greater width of door opening led to increased microbial load in the OR. Increased staff movement also increased the microbial load. There was a significantly higher microbial load on the floor than at waist level.

Movement of staff and the duration and width of door opening definitely affects the OR microbial load. However, further investigation is needed to determine how the number of staff affects the microbial load and how to reduce the microbial load at the surgical table.

To investigate the timing and routes of contamination of the rooms of patients newly admitted to the hospital.

Observational cohort study and simulations of pathogen transfer.

A Veterans’ Affairs hospital.

Patients newly admitted to the hospital with no known carriage of healthcare-associated pathogens.

Interactions between the participants and personnel or portable equipment were observed, and cultures of high-touch surfaces, floors, bedding, and patients’ socks and skin were collected for up to 4 days. Cultures were processed for Clostridioides difficile, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE). Simulations were conducted with bacteriophage MS2 to assess plausibility of transfer from contaminated floors to high-touch surfaces and to assess the effectiveness of wearing slippers in reducing transfer.

Environmental cultures became positive for at least 1 pathogen in 10 (59%) of the 17 rooms, with cultures positive for MRSA, C. difficile, and VRE in the rooms of 10 (59%), 2 (12%), and 2 (12%) participants, respectively. For all 14 instances of pathogen detection, the initial site of recovery was the floor followed in a subset of patients by detection on sock bottoms, bedding, and high-touch surfaces. In simulations, wearing slippers over hospital socks dramatically reduced transfer of bacteriophage MS2 from the floor to hands and to high-touch surfaces.

Floors may be an underappreciated source of pathogen dissemination in healthcare facilities. Simple interventions such as having patients wear slippers could potentially reduce the risk for transfer of pathogens from floors to hands and high-touch surfaces.

In the era of widespread resistance, there are 2 time points at which most empiric prescription errors occur among hospitalized adults: (1) upon admission (UA) when treating patients at risk of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) and (2) during hospitalization, when treating patients at risk of extensively drug-resistant organisms (XDROs). These errors adversely influence patient outcomes and the hospital’s ecology.

Retrospective cohort study, Shamir Medical Center, Israel, 2016.

Adult patients (aged >18 years) hospitalized with sepsis.

Logistic regressions were used to develop predictive models for (1) MDRO UA and (2) nosocomial XDRO. Their performances on the derivation data sets, and on 7 other validation data sets, were assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC AUC).

In total, 4,114 patients were included: 2,472 patients with sepsis UA and 1,642 with nosocomial sepsis. The MDRO UA score included 10 parameters, and with a cutoff of ≥22 points, it had an ROC AUC of 0.85. The nosocomial XDRO score included 7 parameters, and with a cutoff of ≥36 points, it had an ROC AUC of 0.87. The range of ROC AUCs for the validation data sets was 0.7–0.88 for the MDRO UA score and was 0.66–0.75 for nosocomial XDRO score. We created a free web calculator (https://assafharofe.azurewebsites.net).

A simple electronic calculator could aid with empiric prescription during an encounter with a septic patient. Future implementation studies are needed to evaluate its utility in improving patient outcomes and in reducing overall resistances.

To evaluate broad-spectrum intravenous antibiotic use before and after the implementation of a revised febrile neutropenia management algorithm in a population of adults with hematologic malignancies.

Quasi-experimental study.

Patients admitted between 2014 and 2018 to the Adult Malignant Hematology service of an acute-care hospital in the United States.

Aggregate data for adult malignant hematology service were obtained for population-level antibiotic use: days of therapy (DOT), C. difficile infections, bacterial bloodstream infections, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, and in-hospital mortality. All rates are reported per 1,000 patient days before the implementation of an febrile neutropenia management algorithm (July 2014–May 2016) and after the intervention (June 2016–December 2018). These data were compared using interrupted time series analysis.

In total, 2,014 patients comprised 6,788 encounters and 89,612 patient days during the study period. Broad-spectrum intravenous (IV) antibiotic use decreased by 5.7% with immediate reductions in meropenem and vancomycin use by 22 (P = .02) and 15 (P = .001) DOT per 1,000 patient days, respectively. Bacterial bloodstream infection rates significantly increased following algorithm implementation. No differences were observed in the use of other antibiotics or safety outcomes including C. difficile infection, ICU length of stay, and in-hospital mortality.

Reductions in vancomycin and meropenem were observed following the implementation of a more stringent febrile neutropenia management algorithm, without evidence of adverse outcomes. Successful implementation occurred through a collaborative effort and continues to be a core reinforcement strategy at our institution. Future studies evaluating patient-level data may identify further stewardship opportunities in this population.

Data on short-term peripheral intravenous catheter–related bloodstream infections per 1,000 peripheral venous catheter days (PIVCR BSIs per 1,000 PVC days) rates from Latin America are not available, so they have not been thoroughly studied.

International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium (INICC) members conducted a prospective, surveillance study on PIVCR BSIs from January 2010 to March 2018 in 100 intensive care units (ICUs) among 41 hospitals, in 26 cities of 9 countries in Latin America (Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican-Republic, Ecuador, Mexico, Panama, and Venezuela). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Health Safety Network (NHSN) definitions were applied, and INICC methodology and INICC Surveillance Online System software were used.

In total, 10,120 ICU patients were followed for 40,078 bed days and 38,262 PVC days. In addition, 79 PIVCR BSIs were identified, with a rate of 2.06 per 1,000 PVC days (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.635–2.257). The average length of stay (ALOS) of patients without a PIVCR BSI was 3.95 days, and the ALOS was 5.29 days for patients with a PIVCR BSI. The crude extra ALOS was 1.34 days (RR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.0975–1.6351; P = .040).

The mortality rate in patients without PIVCR BSI was 3.67%, and this rate was 6.33% in patients with a PIVCR BSI. The crude extra mortality was 1.70 times higher. The microorganism profile showed 48.5% gram-positive bacteria (coagulase-negative Staphylococci 25.7%) and 48.5% gram-negative bacteria: Acinetobacter spp, Escherichia coli, and Klebsiella spp (8.5% each one), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (5.7%), and Candida spp (2.8%). The resistances of Pseudomonas aeruginosa were 0% to amikacin and 50% to meropenem. The resistance of Acinetobacter baumanii to amikacin was 0%, and the resistance of coagulase-negative Staphylococcus to oxacillin was 75%.

Our PIVCR BSI rates were higher than rates from more economically developed countries and were similar to those of countries with limited resources.