Bioaerosol Sampling for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in a Referral Center with Critically Ill Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Patients March-May 2020.

BACKGROUND: Previous research has shown that rooms of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) present the potential for healthcare-associated transmission through aerosols containing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, data on the presence of these aerosols outside of patient rooms are limited. We investigated whether virus-containing aerosols were present in nursing stations and patient room hallways in a referral center with critically ill COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Eight National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health BC 251 2-stage cyclone samplers were set up throughout 6 units, including nursing stations and visitor corridors in intensive care units and general medical units, for 6 h each sampling period. Samplers were placed on tripods which held 2 samplers positioned 102 cm and 152 cm above the floor. Units were sampled for 3 days. Extracted samples underwent reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction for selected gene regions of the SARS-CoV-2 virus nucleocapsid and the housekeeping gene human RNase P as an internal control. RESULTS: The units sampled varied in the number of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients present on the days of sampling. Some of the units included patient rooms under negative pressure, while most were maintained at a neutral pressure. Of 528 aerosol samples collected, none were positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by the estimated limit of detection of 8 viral copies/m3 of air. CONCLUSIONS: Aerosolized SARS-CoV-2 outside of patient rooms was undetectable. While healthcare personnel should avoid unmasked close contact with each other, these findings may provide reassurance for the use of alternatives to tight-fitting respirators in areas outside of patient rooms during the current pandemic.

The impact of cold weather on respiratory morbidity at Emory Healthcare in Atlanta.

BACKGROUND: Research on temperature and respiratory hospitalizations is lacking in the southeastern U.S. where cold weather is relatively rare. This retrospective study examined the association between cold waves and pneumonia and influenza (P&I) emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations in three metro-Atlanta hospitals. METHODS: We used a case-crossover design, restricting data to the cooler seasons of 2009-2019, to determine whether cold waves influenced ED visits and hospitalizations. This analysis considered effects by race/ethnicity, age, sex, and severity of comorbidities. We used generalized additive models and distributed lag non-linear models to examine these relationships over a 21-day lag period. RESULTS: The odds of a P&I ED visit approximately one week after a cold wave were increased by as much as 11%, and odds of an ED visit resulting in hospitalization increased by 8%. For ED visits on days with minimum temperatures >20 °C, there was an increase of 10-15% in relative risk (RR) for short lags (0-2 days), and a slight decrease in RR (0-5%) one week later. For minimum temperatures <0 °C, RR decreased at short lags (5-10%) before increasing (1-5%) one week later. Hospital admissions exhibited a similar, but muted, pattern. CONCLUSION: Unusually cold weather influenced P&I ED visits and admissions in this population.

Healthcare worker mental models of patient care tasks in the context of infection prevention and control.

OBJECTIVE: Understanding the cognitive determinants of healthcare worker (HCW) behavior is important for improving the use of infection prevention and control (IPC) practices. Given a patient requiring only standard precautions, we examined the dimensions along which different populations of HCWs cognitively organize patient care tasks (ie, their mental models). DESIGN: HCWs read a description of a patient and then rated the similarities of 25 patient care tasks from an infection prevention perspective. Using multidimensional scaling, we identified the dimensions (ie, characteristics of tasks) underlying these ratings and the salience of each dimension to HCWs. SETTING: Adult inpatient hospitals across an academic hospital network. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 40 HCWs, comprising infection preventionists and nurses from intensive care units, emergency departments, and medical-surgical floors rated the similarity of tasks. To identify the meaning of each dimension, another 6 nurses rated each task in terms of specific characteristics of tasks. RESULTS: Each HCW population perceived patient care tasks to vary along 3 common dimensions; most salient was the perceived magnitude of infection risk to the patient in a task, followed by the perceived dirtiness and risk of HCW exposure to body fluids, and lastly, the relative importance of a task for preventing versus controlling an infection in a patient. CONCLUSIONS: For a patient requiring only standard precautions, different populations of HCWs have similar mental models of how various patient care tasks relate to IPC. Techniques for eliciting mental models open new avenues for understanding and ultimately modifying the cognitive determinants of IPC behaviors.

Sampling for SARS-CoV-2 Aerosols in Hospital Patient Rooms.

Evidence varies as to how far aerosols spread from individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 in hospital rooms. We investigated the presence of aerosols containing SARS-CoV-2 inside of dedicated COVID-19 patient rooms. Three National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health BC 251 two-stage cyclone samplers were set up in each patient room for a six-hour sampling period. Samplers were place on tripods, which each held two samplers at various heights above the floor. Extracted samples underwent reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction for selected gene regions of the SARS-CoV-2 virus nucleocapsid. Patient medical data were compared between participants in rooms where virus-containing aerosols were detected and those where they were not. Of 576 aerosols samples collected from 19 different rooms across 32 participants, 3% (19) were positive for SARS-CoV-2, the majority from near the head and foot of the bed. Seven of the positive samples were collected inside a single patient room. No significant differences in participant clinical characteristics were found between patients in rooms with positive and negative aerosol samples. SARS-CoV-2 viral aerosols were detected from the patient rooms of nine participants (28%). These findings provide reassurance that personal protective equipment that was recommended for this virus is appropriate given its spread in hospital rooms.

Bioaerosol sampling of a ventilated patient with COVID-19.

Bioaerosol samples were collected in an airborne infection isolation room, bathroom, and anteroom of a ventilated patient with coronavirus disease 2019. Twenty-eight samples were negative for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acid, possibly due to the patient being on a closed-circuit ventilator or the efficiency of the air exchanges in the room.