Infection Prevention Considerations for a Multi-Mission Convention Center Field Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland, During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The state of Maryland identified its first case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on March 5, 2020. The Baltimore Convention Center (BCCFH) quickly became a selected location to set up a 250-bed inpatient field hospital and alternate care site. In contrast to other field hospitals throughout the United States, the BCCFH remained open throughout the pandemic and took on additional COVID-19 missions, including community severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) diagnostic testing, monoclonal antibody infusions for COVID-19 outpatients, and community COVID-19 vaccinations.To prevent the spread of pathogens during operations, infection prevention and control guidelines were essential to ensure the safety of staff and patients. Through multi-agency collaboration, use of infection prevention best practices, and answering what we describe as PPE-ESP, an operational framework was established to reduce infection risks for those providing or receiving care at the BCCFH during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) symptoms, patient contacts, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positivity and seropositivity among healthcare personnel in a Maryland healthcare system.

In a large, system-wide, healthcare personnel (HCP) testing experience using severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and serologic testing early in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, we did not find increased infection risk related to COVID-19 patient contact. Our findings support workplace policies for HCP protection and underscore the role of community exposure and asymptomatic infection.

Current Insights Into Respiratory Virus Transmission and Potential Implications for Infection Control Programs : A Narrative Review.

Policies to prevent respiratory virus transmission in health care settings have traditionally divided organisms into Droplet versus Airborne categories. Droplet organisms (for example, influenza) are said to be transmitted via large respiratory secretions that rapidly fall to the ground within 1 to 2 meters and are adequately blocked by surgical masks. Airborne pathogens (for example, measles), by contrast, are transmitted by aerosols that are small enough and light enough to carry beyond 2 meters and to penetrate the gaps between masks and faces; health care workers are advised to wear N95 respirators and to place these patients in negative-pressure rooms. Respirators and negative-pressure rooms are also recommended when caring for patients with influenza or SARS-CoV-2 who are undergoing "aerosol-generating procedures," such as intubation. An increasing body of evidence, however, questions this framework. People routinely emit respiratory particles in a range of sizes, but most are aerosols, and most procedures do not generate meaningfully more aerosols than ordinary breathing, and far fewer than coughing, exercise, or labored breathing. Most transmission nonetheless occurs at close range because virus-laden aerosols are most concentrated at the source; they then diffuse and dilute with distance, making long-distance transmission rare in well-ventilated spaces. The primary risk factors for nosocomial transmission are community incidence rates, viral load, symptoms, proximity, duration of exposure, and poor ventilation. Failure to appreciate these factors may lead to underappreciation of some risks (for example, overestimation of the protection provided by medical masks, insufficient attention to ventilation) or misallocation of limited resources (for example, reserving N95 respirators and negative-pressure rooms only for aerosol-generating procedures or requiring negative-pressure rooms for all patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection regardless of stage of illness). Enhanced understanding of the factors governing respiratory pathogen transmission may inform the development of more effective policies to prevent nosocomial transmission of respiratory pathogens.

Optimization in the Context of COVID-19 Prediction and Control: A Literature Review.

This paper presents an overview of some key results from a body of optimization studies that are specifically related to COVID-19, as reported in the literature during 2020-2021. As shown in this paper, optimization studies in the context of COVID-19 have been used for many aspects of the pandemic. From these studies, it is observed that since COVID-19 is a multifaceted problem, it cannot be studied from a single perspective or framework, and neither can the related optimization models. Four new and different frameworks are proposed that capture the essence of analyzing COVID-19 (or any pandemic for that matter) and the relevant optimization models. These are: (i) microscale vs. macroscale perspective; (ii) early stages vs. later stages perspective; (iii) aspects with direct vs. indirect relationship to COVID-19; and (iv) compartmentalized perspective. To limit the scope of the review, only optimization studies related to the prediction and control of COVID-19 are considered (public health focused), and which utilize formal optimization techniques or machine learning approaches. In this context and to the best of our knowledge, this survey paper is the first in the literature with a focus on the prediction and control related optimization studies. These studies include optimization of screening testing strategies, prediction, prevention and control, resource management, vaccination prioritization, and decision support tools. Upon reviewing the literature, this paper identifies current gaps and major challenges that hinder the closure of these gaps and provides some insights into future research directions.

Clinical evaluation of Sofia Rapid Antigen Assay for detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) among emergency department to hospital admissions.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the utility of the Sofia SARS rapid antigen fluorescent immunoassay (FIA) to guide hospital-bed placement of patients being admitted through the emergency department (ED). DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of a clinical quality improvement study. SETTING: This study was conducted in 2 community hospitals in Maryland from September 21, 2020, to December 3, 2020. In total, 2,887 patients simultaneously received the Sofia SARS rapid antigen FIA and SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assays on admission through the ED. METHODS: Rapid antigen results and symptom assessment guided initial patient placement while confirmatory RT-PCR was pending. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values of the rapid antigen assay were calculated relative to RT-PCR, overall and separately for symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. Assay sensitivity was compared to RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values. Assay turnaround times were compared. Clinical characteristics of RT-PCR-positive patients and potential exposures from false-negative antigen assays were evaluated. RESULTS: For all patients, overall agreement was 97.9%; sensitivity was 76.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 71%-82%), and specificity was 99.7% (95% CI, 99%-100%). We detected no differences in performance between asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals. As RT-PCR Ct increased, the sensitivity of the antigen assay decreased. The mean turnaround time for the antigen assay was 1.2 hours (95% CI, 1.0-1.3) and for RT-PCR it was 20.1 hours (95% CI, 18.9-40.3) (P < .001). No transmission from antigen-negative/RT-PCR-positive patients was identified. CONCLUSIONS: Although not a replacement for RT-PCR for detection of all SARS-CoV-2 infections, the Sofia SARS antigen FIA has clinical utility for potential initial timely patient placement.

Risk Factors Associated With SARS-CoV-2 Seropositivity Among US Health Care Personnel.

Importance: Risks for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among health care personnel (HCP) are unclear. Objective: To evaluate the risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity among HCP with the a priori hypothesis that community exposure but not health care exposure was associated with seropositivity. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study was conducted among volunteer HCP at 4 large health care systems in 3 US states. Sites shared deidentified data sets, including previously collected serology results, questionnaire results on community and workplace exposures at the time of serology, and 3-digit residential zip code prefix of HCP. Site-specific responses were mapped to a common metadata set. Residential weekly coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cumulative incidence was calculated from state-based COVID-19 case and census data. Exposures: Model variables included demographic (age, race, sex, ethnicity), community (known COVID-19 contact, COVID-19 cumulative incidence by 3-digit zip code prefix), and health care (workplace, job role, COVID-19 patient contact) factors. Main Outcome and Measures: The main outcome was SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. Risk factors for seropositivity were estimated using a mixed-effects logistic regression model with a random intercept to account for clustering by site. Results: Among 24 749 HCP, most were younger than 50 years (17 233 [69.6%]), were women (19 361 [78.2%]), were White individuals (15 157 [61.2%]), and reported workplace contact with patients with COVID-19 (12 413 [50.2%]). Many HCP worked in the inpatient setting (8893 [35.9%]) and were nurses (7830 [31.6%]). Cumulative incidence of COVID-19 per 10 000 in the community up to 1 week prior to serology testing ranged from 8.2 to 275.6; 20 072 HCP (81.1%) reported no COVID-19 contact in the community. Seropositivity was 4.4% (95% CI, 4.1%-4.6%; 1080 HCP) overall. In multivariable analysis, community COVID-19 contact and community COVID-19 cumulative incidence were associated with seropositivity (community contact: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 3.5; 95% CI, 2.9-4.1; community cumulative incidence: aOR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.3-2.6). No assessed workplace factors were associated with seropositivity, including nurse job role (aOR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.9-1.3), working in the emergency department (aOR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.8-1.3), or workplace contact with patients with COVID-19 (aOR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.9-1.3). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of US HCP in 3 states, community exposures were associated with seropositivity to SARS-CoV-2, but workplace factors, including workplace role, environment, or contact with patients with known COVID-19, were not. These findings provide reassurance that current infection prevention practices in diverse health care settings are effective in preventing transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from patients to HCP.

Rapid Spread and Control of Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacteria in COVID-19 Patient Care Units.

We describe rapid spread of multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacteria among patients in dedicated coronavirus disease care units in a hospital in Maryland, USA, during May-June 2020. Critical illness, high antibiotic use, double occupancy of single rooms, and modified infection prevention practices were key contributing factors. Surveillance culturing aided in outbreak recognition and control.

Change in hospital antibiotic use and acquisition of multidrug-resistant gram-negative organisms after the onset of coronavirus disease 2019.

Interrupted time series segmented regression was conducted to trend antibiotic use and multidrug-resistant gram-negative (MDRGN) acquisition relative to COVID-19 in an academic hospital. Total antibiotic use and antibiotic use related to pneumonia was higher in the period after the onset of COVID-19 compared to the similar calendar period in 2019. Furthermore, MDRGN acquisition increased 3% for every increase in positive COVID-19 tests per week.