Universal admission laboratory screening for severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) asymptomatic infection across a large health system.

BACKGROUND: Admission laboratory screening for asymptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been utilized to mitigate healthcare-associated severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission. An understanding of the impact of such testing across a variety of patient populations is needed. METHODS: SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification admission testing results for all asymptomatic patients across 4 distinct inpatient facilities between April 20, 2020, and June 14, 2021, were analyzed. Positivity rates and the number needed to test (NNT) to identify 1 asymptomatic infected patient were calculated. Admission results were compared to COVID-19 community incidence rates for the system's surrounding metropolitan service area. Using a national survey of hospital epidemiologists, a clinically meaningful NNT of 1:100 was identified. RESULTS: In total, 51,187 tests were collected (positivity rate, 1.8%). During periods of high transmission, the NNT met the clinically relevant threshold in all populations. The NNT approached or met the threshold for most locations during periods of lower transmission. For all transmission levels, the NNT for fully vaccinated patients did not meet the threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing an asymptomatic patient admission testing program can provide clinically relevant data based on the NNT, even during periods of lower transmission and among different patient populations. Limiting admission testing to non-fully vaccinated patients during periods of lower transmission may be a strategy to address resource concerns around this practice. Although the impact of such testing on healthcare-associated COVID-19 among patients and healthcare workers could not be clearly determined, these data provide important information as facilities weigh the costs and benefits of such testing.

Asymptomatic screening for severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) as an infection prevention measure in healthcare facilities: Challenges and considerations.

Testing of asymptomatic patients for severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (ie, "asymptomatic screening) to attempt to reduce the risk of nosocomial transmission has been extensive and resource intensive, and such testing is of unclear benefit when added to other layers of infection prevention mitigation controls. In addition, the logistic challenges and costs related to screening program implementation, data noting the lack of substantial aerosol generation with elective controlled intubation, extubation, and other procedures, and the adverse patient and facility consequences of asymptomatic screening call into question the utility of this infection prevention intervention. Consequently, the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) recommends against routine universal use of asymptomatic screening for SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare facilities. Specifically, preprocedure asymptomatic screening is unlikely to provide incremental benefit in preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the procedural and perioperative environment when other infection prevention strategies are in place, and it should not be considered a requirement for all patients. Admission screening may be beneficial during times of increased virus transmission in some settings where other layers of controls are limited (eg, behavioral health, congregate care, or shared patient rooms), but widespread routine use of admission asymptomatic screening is not recommended over strengthening other infection prevention controls. In this commentary, we outline the challenges surrounding the use of asymptomatic screening, including logistics and costs of implementing a screening program, and adverse patient and facility consequences. We review data pertaining to the lack of substantial aerosol generation during elective controlled intubation, extubation, and other procedures, and we provide guidance for when asymptomatic screening for SARS-CoV-2 may be considered in a limited scope.

Approaches to healthcare personnel exemption requests from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination: Results of a national survey.

OBJECTIVE: Although a growing number of healthcare facilities are implementing healthcare personnel (HCP) coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination requirements, vaccine exemption request management as a part of such programs is not well described. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS: Infectious disease (ID) physician members of the Emerging Infections Network with infection prevention or hospital epidemiology responsibilities. METHODS: Eligible persons were sent a web-based survey focused on hospital plans and practices around exemption allowances from HCP COVID-19 vaccine requirements. RESULTS: Of the 695 ID physicians surveyed, 263 (38%) responded. Overall, 160 respondent institutions (92%) allowed medical exemptions, whereas 132 (76%) allowed religious exemptions. In contrast, only 14% (n = 24) allowed deeply held personal belief exemptions. The types of medical exemptions allowed varied considerably across facilities, with allergic reactions to the vaccine or its components accepted by 145 facilities (84%). For selected scenarios commonly used as the basis for religious and deeply held personal belief exemption requests, 144 institutions (83%) would not approve exemptions focused on concerns regarding right of consent or violations of freedom of personal choice, and 140 institutions (81%) would not approve exemptions focused on introducing foreign substances into one's body or the sanctity of the body. Most respondents noted plans for additional infection prevention interventions for HCP who received an exemption for COVID-19 vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Although many respondent institutions allowed exemptions from HCP COVID-19 vaccination requirements, the types of exemptions allowed and how the exemption programs were structured varied widely.

Health Care-Acquired Viral Respiratory Diseases.

Health care-acquired viral respiratory infections are common and cause increased patient morbidity and mortality. Although the threat of viral respiratory infection has been underscored by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, respiratory viruses have a significant impact in health care settings even under normal circumstances. Studies report decreased nosocomial transmission when aggressive infection control measures are implemented, with more success noted when using a multicomponent approach. Influenza vaccination of health care personnel furthers decrease rates of transmission; thus, mandatory vaccination is becoming more common. This article discusses the epidemiology, transmission, and control of health care-associated respiratory viral infections.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination preparedness policies in US hospitals.

We surveyed infectious disease specialists about early coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination preparedness. Almost all responding institutions rated their facility's preparedness plan as either excellent or adequate. Vaccine hesitancy and concern about adverse reactions were the most commonly anticipated barriers to COVID-19 vaccination. Only 60% believed that COVID-19 vaccination should be mandatory.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) research agenda for healthcare epidemiology.

This SHEA white paper identifies knowledge gaps and challenges in healthcare epidemiology research related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with a focus on core principles of healthcare epidemiology. These gaps, revealed during the worst phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, are described in 10 sections: epidemiology, outbreak investigation, surveillance, isolation precaution practices, personal protective equipment (PPE), environmental contamination and disinfection, drug and supply shortages, antimicrobial stewardship, healthcare personnel (HCP) occupational safety, and return to work policies. Each section highlights three critical healthcare epidemiology research questions with detailed description provided in supplementary materials. This research agenda calls for translational studies from laboratory-based basic science research to well-designed, large-scale studies and health outcomes research. Research gaps and challenges related to nursing homes and social disparities are included. Collaborations across various disciplines, expertise and across diverse geographic locations will be critical.

Assessing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) transmission to healthcare personnel: The global ACT-HCP case-control study.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize associations between exposures within and outside the medical workplace with healthcare personnel (HCP) SARS-CoV-2 infection, including the effect of various forms of respiratory protection. DESIGN: Case-control study. SETTING: We collected data from international participants via an online survey. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 1,130 HCP (244 cases with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, and 886 controls healthy throughout the pandemic) from 67 countries not meeting prespecified exclusion (ie, healthy but not working, missing workplace exposure data, COVID symptoms without lab confirmation) were included in this study. METHODS: Respondents were queried regarding workplace exposures, respiratory protection, and extra-occupational activities. Odds ratios for HCP infection were calculated using multivariable logistic regression and sensitivity analyses controlling for confounders and known biases. RESULTS: HCP infection was associated with non-aerosol-generating contact with COVID-19 patients (adjusted OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.04-1.9; P = .03) and extra-occupational exposures including gatherings of ≥10 people, patronizing restaurants or bars, and public transportation (adjusted OR range, 3.1-16.2). Respirator use during aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) was associated with lower odds of HCP infection (adjusted OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.8, P = .005), as was exposure to intensive care and dedicated COVID units, negative pressure rooms, and personal protective equipment (PPE) observers (adjusted OR range, 0.4-0.7). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 transmission to HCP was associated with medical exposures currently considered lower-risk and multiple extra-occupational exposures, and exposures associated with proper use of appropriate PPE were protective. Closer scrutiny of infection control measures surrounding healthcare activities and medical settings considered lower risk, and continued awareness of the risks of public congregation, may reduce the incidence of HCP infection.