RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Educating healthcare staff on infection prevention and control (IPC) is an essential role of infection preventionists (IP), but the COVID-19 pandemic diverted resources away from IPC education. This study's purpose was to conduct an assessment of current IPC training needs. METHODS: Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology members were invited to complete an online survey in May - June, 2023 to assess their current and preferred approaches and tools for training healthcare personnel on IPC. Vendors, retirees, APIC staff, or those not working in a healthcare setting or public health were excluded. RESULTS: In all, 2,432 IPs participated. IPs were more likely to report engaging in impromptu healthcare worker training (i.e., just-in-time teaching and team huddles) versus planned educational activities (i.e., learning modules, formal presentations, train-the-trainer, or simulation; KW=288, p <.001). IPs' top preferred teaching methodologies included simulation or interactive activity and their lowest preferred approach was independent learning modules. IPC training apps were the most frequently requested technology. DISCUSSION: IPs ranked simulation as their top preferred teaching method; however, simulation was one of the least frequently used approaches. IP education should include strategies for delivering effective impromptu training and how to develop and implement interactive simulation-based education. CONCLUSIONS: The expressed needs and preferences of IPs should be considered when developing IPC-related teaching and training tools.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To assess extent of a healthcare-associated outbreak of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and to evaluate the effectiveness of infection control measures, including universal masking. DESIGN: Outbreak investigation including 4 large-scale point-prevalence surveys. SETTING: Integrated VA healthcare system with 2 facilities and 330 beds. PARTICIPANTS: Index patient and 250 exposed patients and staff. METHODS: We identified exposed patients and staff and classified them as probable and confirmed cases based on symptoms and testing. We performed a field investigation and an assessment of patient and staff interactions to develop probable transmission routes. Infection prevention interventions included droplet and contact precautions, employee quarantine, and universal masking with medical and cloth face masks. We conducted 4 point-prevalence surveys of patient and staff subsets using real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction for SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: Among 250 potentially exposed patients and staff, 14 confirmed cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were identified. Patient roommates and staff with prolonged patient contact were most likely to be infected. The last potential date of transmission from staff to patient was day 22, the day universal masking was implemented. Subsequent point-prevalence surveys in 126 patients and 234 staff identified 0 patient cases and 5 staff cases of COVID-19, without evidence of healthcare-associated transmission. CONCLUSIONS: Universal masking with medical face masks was effective in preventing further spread of SARS-CoV-2 in our facility in conjunction with other traditional infection prevention measures.