Preventing COVID-19 Outbreaks in Long-Term Care Facilities Through Preemptive Testing of Residents and Staff Members - Fulton County, Georgia, March-May 2020.

Long-term care facility (LTCF) residents are at particularly high risk for morbidity and mortality associated with infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), given their age and high prevalence of chronic medical conditions, combined with functional impairment that often requires frequent, close contact with health care providers, who might inadvertently spread the virus to residents (1,2). During March-May 2020 in Fulton County, Georgia, >50% of COVID-19-associated deaths occurred among LTCF residents, although these persons represented <1% of the population (3,4). Mass testing for SARS-CoV-2 has been an effective strategy for identifying asymptomatic and presymptomatic infections in LTCFs (5). This analysis sought to evaluate the timing at which mass testing took place in relation to the known presence of a COVID-19 infection and the resulting number of infections that occurred. In 15 LTCFs that performed facility-wide testing in response to an identified case, high prevalences of additional cases in residents and staff members were found at initial testing (28.0% and 7.4%, respectively), suggesting spread of infection had already occurred by the time the first case was identified. Prevalence was also high during follow-up, with a total of 42.4% of residents and 11.8% of staff members infected overall in the response facilities. In comparison, 13 LTCFs conducted testing as a preventive strategy before a case was identified. Although the majority of these LTCFs identified at least one COVID-19 case, the prevalence was significantly lower at initial testing in both residents and staff members (0.5% and 1.0%, respectively) and overall after follow-up (1.5% and 1.7%, respectively). These findings indicate that early awareness of infections might help facilities prevent potential outbreaks by prioritizing and adhering more strictly to infection prevention and control (IPC) recommendations, resulting in fewer infections than would occur when relying on symptom-based screening (6,7).

Patterns of Screening, Infection, and Treatment of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhea in Pregnancy.

OBJECTIVE: To describe factors associated with not being tested for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhea infection during pregnancy and for testing positive and to describe patterns of treatment and tests of reinfection. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of women who delivered at an urban teaching hospital from July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2018. Women with at least one prenatal care or triage visit were included. The index delivery was included for women with multiple deliveries. We used logistic regression to analyze factors associated with not being tested and for testing positive for these infections in pregnancy. Cox proportional hazards models were used to examine factors associated with time to treatment and tests of reinfection. We reviewed medical records to determine reasons for delays in treatment longer than 1 week. RESULTS: Among 3,265 eligible deliveries, 3,177 (97%) women were tested during pregnancy. Of these, 370 (12%) tested positive (287 chlamydia, 35 gonorrhea, 48 both), and 15% had repeat infections. Prenatal care adequacy and insurance status were risk factors for not being tested. Age, race and ethnicity, alcohol use, and sexually transmitted infection history were associated with testing positive. Time to treatment ranged from 0 to 221 days, with the majority (55%) of patients experiencing delays of more than 1 week. Common reasons for delays included lack of clinician recognition and follow-up of abnormal results (65%) and difficulty contacting the patient (33%). CONCLUSION: Traditional risk factors are associated with increased risk of infection during pregnancy. Prenatal care adequacy and insurance status were associated with the likelihood of being tested. Delays in treatment and tests of reinfection were common. Point-of-care testing and expedited partner therapy should be explored as ways to improve the management of these infections in pregnancy.

Trends and Characteristics Associated With Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Uptake Among Men Who Have Sex With Men in the United States, 2014-2017.

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) and HPV-associated cancer rates are high among men who have sex with men (MSM). The US Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends HPV vaccination for all MSM through age 26 years. We examined trends in HPV vaccine uptake among young US MSM between 2014 and 2017. METHODS: Cochran-Armitage tests and estimated annual percentage changes were used to examine annual trends (2014-2017) in HPV vaccination initiation among US MSM ≤26 years as of 2011 who participated in a nationwide annual cross-sectional online survey. We identified independent correlates of HPV vaccination in 2017 using Poisson regression modeling. RESULTS: There were 2,381 participants in 2014; 4,143 in 2015; 3,926 in 2016; and 3,407 in 2017. Mean age was 23.5 years, 39% lived in metropolitan areas, and 37% lived in the South. HPV vaccination significantly increased (P < 0.0001) from 22.5% in 2014 to 37.6% in 2017 (estimated annual percentage change = 17.4%). HPV vaccination was significantly greater for MSM who were younger, had health insurance, saw a healthcare provider in the past 12-months, resided in the Northeast, resided in metropolitan areas, had higher household income, disclosed their sexual identity to health care provider, and had gonorrhea/chlamydia diagnosis in the past 12-months. CONCLUSIONS: Human papillomavirus vaccination among MSM increased from 2014 to 2017, but vaccine uptake varied significantly by MSM subgroup. Despite favorable trends, the HPV vaccination coverage for this population (37.6%) is less than half of the Healthy People 2020 target (80%). Additional efforts are needed to increase coverage.

Practice-, Provider-, and Patient-level interventions to improve preventive care: Development of the P3 Model.

For adequate provision of preventive services, there is an interplay between activities at the healthcare practice, healthcare provider, and patient levels of the clinical encounter. Commonly used health promotion and behavior theoretical models address some of these three levels, but none fully account for all three. Building off of key components of many existing theoretical models, including the Health Belief Model, Theory of Planned Behavior/Theory of Reasoned Action, Social Cognitive Theory, Social Ecological Model, and the Systems Model of Clinical Preventive Care, we describe the development of the P3 (Practice-, Provider-, and Patient-level) Model for preventive care interventions. The P3 Model accounts for all three levels of the clinical encounter, and the factors that impact these levels, concurrently. This yields a model for preventive care that is applicable and adaptable to different settings, and that provides a framework for the development, implementation, and evaluation of preventive care promotion interventions. The applicability of the P3 Model is shown through two exemplar preventive care programs - immunization and colorectal cancer screening. The P3 Model allows interventions to be developed and evaluated in a modular approach, to allow more practical refinement and optimization of the intervention.