Stopping Hospital Infections With Environmental Services (SHINE): A Cluster-randomized Trial of Intensive Monitoring Methods for Terminal Room Cleaning on Rates of Multidrug-resistant Organisms in the Intensive Care Unit.

BACKGROUND: Multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) frequently contaminate hospital environments. We performed a multicenter, cluster-randomized, crossover trial of 2 methods for monitoring of terminal cleaning effectiveness. METHODS: Six intensive care units (ICUs) at 3 medical centers received both interventions sequentially, in randomized order. Ten surfaces were surveyed each in 5 rooms weekly, after terminal cleaning, with adenosine triphosphate (ATP) monitoring or an ultraviolet fluorescent marker (UV/F). Results were delivered to environmental services staff in real time with failing surfaces recleaned. We measured monthly rates of MDRO infection or colonization, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Clostridioides difficile, vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus, and MDR gram-negative bacilli (MDR-GNB) during a 12-month baseline period and sequential 6-month intervention periods, separated by a 2-month washout. Primary analysis compared only the randomized intervention periods, whereas secondary analysis included the baseline. RESULTS: The ATP method was associated with a reduction in incidence rate of MDRO infection or colonization compared with the UV/F period (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.876; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.807-0.951; P = .002). Including the baseline period, the ATP method was associated with reduced infection with MDROs (IRR 0.924; 95% CI, 0.855-0.998; P = .04), and MDR-GNB infection or colonization (IRR 0.856; 95% CI, 0.825-0.887; P < .001). The UV/F intervention was not associated with a statistically significant impact on these outcomes. Room turnaround time increased by a median of 1 minute with the ATP intervention and 4.5 minutes with UV/F compared with baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Intensive monitoring of ICU terminal room cleaning with an ATP modality is associated with a reduction of MDRO infection and colonization.

Postoperative outcomes after receipt of ertapenem antimicrobial prophylaxis for colon surgery: a multicenter retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate postoperative outcomes among patients undergoing colon surgery who receive perioperative prophylaxis with ertapenem compared to other antibiotic regimens. DESIGN AND SETTING: Multicenter retrospective cohort study among adults undergoing colon surgery in seven hospitals across three health systems from 1/1/2010 to 9/1/2015. METHODS: Generalized linear mixed logistic regression models were applied to assess differential odds of select outcomes among patients who received perioperative prophylaxis with ertapenem compared to other regimens. Postoperative outcomes of interest included surgical site infection (SSI), Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) and clinical culture positivity for carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteraciae (CRE). Inverse probability weights were applied to account for differing covariate distributions across ertapenem and non-ertapenem groups. RESULTS: A total of 2,109 patients were included for analysis. The odds of postoperative SSI was 1.56 times higher among individuals who received ertapenem than among those receiving other perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis regimens in our cohort (46 [3.5%] vs 20 [2.5%]; IPW-weighted OR 1.56, [95% CI, 1.08-2.26], P = .02). No statistically significant differences in odds of postoperative CDI (24 [1.8%] vs 16 [2.0%]; IPW-weighted OR 1.07 [95% CI, .68-1.68], P = .78) were observed between patients who received ertapenem prophylaxis compared to other regimens. Clinical CRE culture positivity was rare in both groups (.2%-.5%) and did not differ statistically. CONCLUSIONS: Ertapenem use for perioperative prophylaxis was associated with increased odds of SSI among patients undergoing colon surgery in our study population, though no differences in CDI or clinical CRE culture positivity were identified. Further study and replication of these findings are needed.

Hospital-acquired coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among patients of two acute-care hospitals: Implications for surveillance.

OBJECTIVES: We quantified hospital-acquired coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during the early phases of the pandemic, and we evaluated solely temporal determinations of hospital acquisition. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study during early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, March 1-November 30, 2020. We identified laboratory-detected severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) from 30 days before admission through discharge. All cases detected after hospital day 5 were categorized by chart review as community or unlikely hospital-acquired cases, or possible or probable hospital-acquired cases. SETTING: The study was conducted in 2 acute-care hospitals in Chicago, Illinois. PATIENTS: The study included all hospitalized patients including an inpatient rehabilitation unit. INTERVENTIONS: Each hospital implemented infection-control precautions soon after identifying COVID-19 cases, including patient and staff cohort protocols, universal masking, and restricted visitation policies. RESULTS: Among 2,667 patients with SARS-CoV-2, detection before hospital day 6 was most common (n = 2,612; 98%); detection during hospital days 6-14 was uncommon (n = 43; 1.6%); and detection after hospital day 14 was rare (n = 16; 0.6%). By chart review, most cases after day 5 were categorized as community acquired, usually because SARS-CoV-2 had been detected at a prior healthcare facility (68% of cases on days 6-14 and 53% of cases after day 14). The incidence rates of possible and probable hospital-acquired cases per 10,000 patient days were similar for ICU- and non-ICU patients at hospital A (1.2 vs 1.3 difference, 0.1; 95% CI, -2.8 to 3.0) and hospital B (2.8 vs 1.2 difference, 1.6; 95% CI, -0.1 to 4.0). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients were protected by early and sustained application of infection-control precautions modified to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Using solely temporal criteria to discriminate hospital versus community acquisition would have misclassified many "late onset" SARS-CoV-2-positive cases.