Effects of Rurality on Distance and Time Traveled to Receive Vaccination Against Mpox-New Mexico and Idaho 2022-2023.

ABSTRACT: We compared mpox vaccination access between urban and rural residents who received ≥1 JYNNEOS dose using immunization data in Idaho and New Mexico. Rural residents traveled 5 times farther and 3 times longer than urban residents to receive mpox vaccination. Increasing mpox vaccine availability to health care facilities might increase uptake.

Investigation of Presumptive HIV Transmission Associated with Receipt of Platelet-Rich Plasma Microneedling Facials at a Spa Among Former Spa Clients - New Mexico, 2018-2023.

HIV transmitted through cosmetic injection services via contaminated blood has not been previously documented. During summer 2018, the New Mexico Department of Health (NMDOH) was notified of a diagnosis of HIV infection in a woman with no known HIV risk factors who reported exposure to needles from cosmetic platelet-rich plasma microneedling facials (vampire facials) received at a spa in spring 2018. An investigation of the spa's services began in summer 2018, and NMDOH and CDC identified four former spa clients, and one sexual partner of a spa client, all of whom received HIV infection diagnoses during 2018-2023, despite low reported behavioral risks associated with HIV acquisition. Nucleotide sequence analysis revealed highly similar HIV strains among all cases. Although transmission of HIV via unsterile injection practices is a known risk, determining novel routes of HIV transmission among persons with no known HIV risk factors is important. This investigation identified an HIV cluster associated with receipt of cosmetic injection services at an unlicensed facility that did not follow recommended infection control procedures or maintain client records. Requiring adequate infection control practices and maintenance of client records at spa facilities offering cosmetic injection services can help prevent the transmission of HIV and other bloodborne pathogens and ensure adequate traceback and notification in the event of adverse clinical outcomes, respectively.

Risk Factors for SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among US Healthcare Personnel, May-December 2020.

To determine risk factors for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) among US healthcare personnel (HCP), we conducted a case-control analysis. We collected data about activities outside the workplace and COVID-19 patient care activities from HCP with positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) test results (cases) and from HCP with negative test results (controls) in healthcare facilities in 5 US states. We used conditional logistic regression to calculate adjusted matched odds ratios and 95% CIs for exposures. Among 345 cases and 622 controls, factors associated with risk were having close contact with persons with COVID-19 outside the workplace, having close contact with COVID-19 patients in the workplace, and assisting COVID-19 patients with activities of daily living. Protecting HCP from COVID-19 may require interventions that reduce their exposures outside the workplace and improve their ability to more safely assist COVID-19 patients with activities of daily living.

Changes in Prevalence of Health Care-Associated Infections in U.S. Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: A point-prevalence survey that was conducted in the United States in 2011 showed that 4% of hospitalized patients had a health care-associated infection. We repeated the survey in 2015 to assess changes in the prevalence of health care-associated infections during a period of national attention to the prevention of such infections. METHODS: At Emerging Infections Program sites in 10 states, we recruited up to 25 hospitals in each site area, prioritizing hospitals that had participated in the 2011 survey. Each hospital selected 1 day on which a random sample of patients was identified for assessment. Trained staff reviewed medical records using the 2011 definitions of health care-associated infections. We compared the percentages of patients with health care-associated infections and performed multivariable log-binomial regression modeling to evaluate the association of survey year with the risk of health care-associated infections. RESULTS: In 2015, a total of 12,299 patients in 199 hospitals were surveyed, as compared with 11,282 patients in 183 hospitals in 2011. Fewer patients had health care-associated infections in 2015 (394 patients [3.2%; 95% confidence interval {CI}, 2.9 to 3.5]) than in 2011 (452 [4.0%; 95% CI, 3.7 to 4.4]) (P<0.001), largely owing to reductions in the prevalence of surgical-site and urinary tract infections. Pneumonia, gastrointestinal infections (most of which were due to Clostridium difficile [now Clostridioides difficile]), and surgical-site infections were the most common health care-associated infections. Patients' risk of having a health care-associated infection was 16% lower in 2015 than in 2011 (risk ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.95; P=0.005), after adjustment for age, presence of devices, days from admission to survey, and status of being in a large hospital. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of health care-associated infections was lower in 2015 than in 2011. To continue to make progress in the prevention of such infections, prevention strategies against C. difficile infection and pneumonia should be augmented. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.).

Antimicrobial Use in a Cohort of US Nursing Homes, 2017.

Importance: Controlling antimicrobial resistance in health care is a public health priority, although data describing antimicrobial use in US nursing homes are limited. Objective: To measure the prevalence of antimicrobial use and describe antimicrobial classes and common indications among nursing home residents. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional, 1-day point-prevalence surveys of antimicrobial use performed between April 2017 and October 2017, last survey date October 31, 2017, and including 15 276 residents present on the survey date in 161 randomly selected nursing homes from selected counties of 10 Emerging Infections Program (EIP) states. EIP staff reviewed nursing home records to collect data on characteristics of residents and antimicrobials administered at the time of the survey. Nursing home characteristics were obtained from nursing home staff and the Nursing Home Compare website. Exposures: Residence in one of the participating nursing homes at the time of the survey. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prevalence of antimicrobial use per 100 residents, defined as the number of residents receiving antimicrobial drugs at the time of the survey divided by the total number of surveyed residents. Multivariable logistic regression modeling of antimicrobial use and percentages of drugs within various classifications. Results: Among 15 276 nursing home residents included in the study (mean [SD] age, 77.6 [13.7] years; 9475 [62%] women), complete prevalence data were available for 96.8%. The overall antimicrobial use prevalence was 8.2 per 100 residents (95% CI, 7.8-8.8). Antimicrobial use was more prevalent in residents admitted to the nursing home within 30 days before the survey date (18.8 per 100 residents; 95% CI, 17.4-20.3), with central venous catheters (62.8 per 100 residents; 95% CI, 56.9-68.3) or with indwelling urinary catheters (19.1 per 100 residents; 95% CI, 16.4-22.0). Antimicrobials were most often used to treat active infections (77% [95% CI, 74.8%-79.2%]) and primarily for urinary tract infections (28.1% [95% CI, 15.5%-30.7%]). While 18.2% (95% CI, 16.1%-20.1%) were for medical prophylaxis, most often use was for the urinary tract (40.8% [95% CI, 34.8%-47.1%]). Fluoroquinolones were the most common antimicrobial class (12.9% [95% CI, 11.3%-14.8%]), and 33.1% (95% CI, 30.7%-35.6%) of antimicrobials used were broad-spectrum antibiotics. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional survey of a cohort of US nursing homes in 2017, prevalence of antimicrobial use was 8.2 per 100 residents. This study provides information on the patterns of antimicrobial use among these nursing home residents.

Facility-Wide Testing for SARS-CoV-2 in Nursing Homes - Seven U.S. Jurisdictions, March-June 2020.

Undetected infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) contributes to transmission in nursing homes, settings where large outbreaks with high resident mortality have occurred (1,2). Facility-wide testing of residents and health care personnel (HCP) can identify asymptomatic and presymptomatic infections and facilitate infection prevention and control interventions (3-5). Seven state or local health departments conducted initial facility-wide testing of residents and staff members in 288 nursing homes during March 24-June 14, 2020. Two of the seven health departments conducted testing in 195 nursing homes as part of facility-wide testing all nursing homes in their state, which were in low-incidence areas (i.e., the median preceding 14-day cumulative incidence in the surrounding county for each jurisdiction was 19 and 38 cases per 100,000 persons); 125 of the 195 nursing homes had not reported any COVID-19 cases before the testing. Ninety-five of 22,977 (0.4%) persons tested in 29 (23%) of these 125 facilities had positive SARS-CoV-2 test results. The other five health departments targeted facility-wide testing to 93 nursing homes, where 13,443 persons were tested, and 1,619 (12%) had positive SARS-CoV-2 test results. In regression analyses among 88 of these nursing homes with a documented case before facility-wide testing occurred, each additional day between identification of the first case and completion of facility-wide testing was associated with identification of 1.3 additional cases. Among 62 facilities that could differentiate results by resident and HCP status, an estimated 1.3 HCP cases were identified for every three resident cases. Performing facility-wide testing immediately after identification of a case commonly identifies additional unrecognized cases and, therefore, might maximize the benefits of infection prevention and control interventions. In contrast, facility-wide testing in low-incidence areas without a case has a lower proportion of test positivity; strategies are needed to further optimize testing in these settings.

Residential social vulnerability among healthcare personnel with and without severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in Five US states, May-December 2020.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize residential social vulnerability among healthcare personnel (HCP) and evaluate its association with severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. DESIGN: Case-control study. SETTING: This study analyzed data collected in May-December 2020 through sentinel and population-based surveillance in healthcare facilities in Colorado, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, and Oregon. PARTICIPANTS: Data from 2,168 HCP (1,571 cases and 597 controls from the same facilities) were analyzed. METHODS: HCP residential addresses were linked to the social vulnerability index (SVI) at the census tract level, which represents a ranking of community vulnerability to emergencies based on 15 US Census variables. The primary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 infection, confirmed by positive antigen or real-time reverse-transcriptase- polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test on nasopharyngeal swab. Significant differences by SVI in participant characteristics were assessed using the Fisher exact test. Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for associations between case status and SVI, controlling for HCP role and patient care activities, were estimated using logistic regression. RESULTS: Significantly higher proportions of certified nursing assistants (48.0%) and medical assistants (44.1%) resided in high SVI census tracts, compared to registered nurses (15.9%) and physicians (11.6%). HCP cases were more likely than controls to live in high SVI census tracts (aOR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.37-2.26). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that residing in more socially vulnerable census tracts may be associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection risk among HCP and that residential vulnerability differs by HCP role. Efforts to safeguard the US healthcare workforce and advance health equity should address the social determinants that drive racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic health disparities.

Characteristics of healthcare personnel with SARS-CoV-2 infection: 10 emerging infections program sites in the United States, April 2020-December 2021.

BACKGROUND: Understanding characteristics of healthcare personnel (HCP) with SARS-CoV-2 infection supports the development and prioritization of interventions to protect this important workforce. We report detailed characteristics of HCP who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 from April 20, 2020 through December 31, 2021. METHODS: CDC collaborated with Emerging Infections Program sites in 10 states to interview HCP with SARS-CoV-2 infection (case-HCP) about their demographics, underlying medical conditions, healthcare roles, exposures, personal protective equipment (PPE) use, and COVID-19 vaccination status. We grouped case-HCP by healthcare role. To describe residential social vulnerability, we merged geocoded HCP residential addresses with CDC/ATSDR Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) values at the census tract level. We defined highest and lowest SVI quartiles as high and low social vulnerability, respectively. RESULTS: Our analysis included 7,531 case-HCP. Most case-HCP with roles as certified nursing assistant (CNA) (444, 61.3%), medical assistant (252, 65.3%), or home healthcare worker (HHW) (225, 59.5%) reported their race and ethnicity as either non-Hispanic Black or Hispanic. More than one third of HHWs (166, 45.2%), CNAs (283, 41.7%), and medical assistants (138, 37.9%) reported a residential address in the high social vulnerability category. The proportion of case-HCP who reported using recommended PPE at all times when caring for patients with COVID-19 was lowest among HHWs compared with other roles. CONCLUSIONS: To mitigate SARS-CoV-2 infection risk in healthcare settings, infection prevention, and control interventions should be specific to HCP roles and educational backgrounds. Additional interventions are needed to address high social vulnerability among HHWs, CNAs, and medical assistants.

Epidemiology of Sepsis in US Children and Young Adults.

Background: Most multicenter studies of US pediatric sepsis epidemiology use administrative data or focus on pediatric intensive care units. We conducted a detailed medical record review to describe sepsis epidemiology in children and young adults. Methods: In a convenience sample of hospitals in 10 states, patients aged 30 days-21 years, discharged during 1 October 2014-30 September 2015, with explicit diagnosis codes for severe sepsis or septic shock, were included. Medical records were reviewed for patients with documentation of sepsis, septic shock, or similar terms. We analyzed overall and age group-specific patient characteristics. Results: Of 736 patients in 26 hospitals, 442 (60.1%) had underlying conditions. Most patients (613 [83.3%]) had community-onset sepsis, although most community-onset sepsis was healthcare associated (344 [56.1%]). Two hundred forty-one patients (32.7%) had outpatient visits 1-7 days before sepsis hospitalization, of whom 125 (51.9%) received antimicrobials ≤30 days before sepsis hospitalization. Age group-related differences included common underlying conditions (<5 years: prematurity vs 5-12 years: chronic pulmonary disease vs 13-21 years: chronic immunocompromise); medical device presence ≤30 days before sepsis hospitalization (1-4 years: 46.9% vs 30 days-11 months: 23.3%); percentage with hospital-onset sepsis (<5 years: 19.6% vs ≥5 years: 12.0%); and percentage with sepsis-associated pathogens (30 days-11 months: 65.6% vs 13-21 years: 49.3%). Conclusions: Our data suggest potential opportunities to raise sepsis awareness among outpatient providers to facilitate prevention, early recognition, and intervention in some patients. Consideration of age-specific differences may be important as approaches are developed to improve sepsis prevention, risk prediction, recognition, and management.

Recent Incarceration Among Individuals Infected With Hepatitis A Virus During Person-to-Person Community Outbreaks, United States, 2016-2020.

OBJECTIVES: Although many people who are incarcerated have risk factors for hepatitis A virus (HAV) infection, the proportion of hepatitis A cases among people with a recent incarceration is unknown. We examined the relationship between recent incarceration and HAV infection during community-based, person-to-person outbreaks to inform public health recommendations. METHODS: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention surveyed health departments in 33 jurisdictions reporting person-to-person HAV outbreaks during 2016-2020 on the number of outbreak-associated cases, HAV-infected people recently incarcerated, and HAV-associated hospitalizations and deaths. RESULTS: Twenty-five health departments reported 18 327 outbreak-associated hepatitis A cases during January 11, 2016-January 24, 2020. In total, 2093 (11.4%) HAV-infected people had been recently incarcerated. Of those with complete data, 1402 of 1462 (95.9%) had been held in a local jail, and 1513 of 1896 (79.8.%) disclosed hepatitis A risk factors. Eighteen jurisdictions reported incarceration timing relative to the exposure period. Of 9707 cases in these jurisdictions, 991 (10.2%) were among recently incarcerated people; 451 of 688 (65.6%) people with complete data had been incarcerated during all (n = 55) or part (n = 396) of their exposure period. CONCLUSIONS: Correctional facilities are important settings for reaching people with risk factors for HAV infection and can also be venues where transmission occurs. Providing HAV vaccination to incarcerated people, particularly people housed in jails, can be an effective component of community-wide outbreak response.