Research gaps and priorities for quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA).

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic highlighted the need for more rapid and routine application of modeling approaches such as quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA) for protecting public health. QMRA is a transdisciplinary science dedicated to understanding, predicting, and mitigating infectious disease risks. To better equip QMRA researchers to inform policy and public health management, an Advances in Research for QMRA workshop was held to synthesize a path forward for QMRA research. We summarize insights from 41 QMRA researchers and experts to clarify the role of QMRA in risk analysis by (1) identifying key research needs, (2) highlighting emerging applications of QMRA; and (3) describing data needs and key scientific efforts to improve the science of QMRA. Key identified research priorities included using molecular tools in QMRA, advancing dose-response methodology, addressing needed exposure assessments, harmonizing environmental monitoring for QMRA, unifying a divide between disease transmission and QMRA models, calibrating and/or validating QMRA models, modeling co-exposures and mixtures, and standardizing practices for incorporating variability and uncertainty throughout the source-to-outcome continuum. Cross-cutting needs identified were to: develop a community of research and practice, integrate QMRA with other scientific approaches, increase QMRA translation and impacts, build communication strategies, and encourage sustainable funding mechanisms. Ultimately, a vision for advancing the science of QMRA is outlined for informing national to global health assessments, controls, and policies.

Aerosol containment device design considerations and performance evaluation metrics.

BACKGROUND: Spurred by the Coronavirus infectious disease 2019 pandemic, aerosol containment devices (ACDs) were developed to capture infectious respiratory aerosols generated by patients at their source. Prior reviews indicated that such devices had low evidence of effectiveness, but did not address how ACDs should be evaluated, how well they should perform, nor have clearly defined performance standards. Towards developing design criteria for ACDs, two questions were posed: 1) What characteristics have guided the design of ACDs? 2) How have these characteristics been evaluated? METHODS: A scoping review was performed consistent with PRISMA guidelines. Data were extracted with respect to general study information, intended use of the device, device design characteristics and evaluation. RESULTS: Fifty-four articles were included. Evaluation was most commonly performed with respect to device aerosol containment (n = 31, 61%), with only 5 (9%), 3 (6%) and 8 (15%) formally assessing providing experience, patient experience and procedure impact, respectively. Nearly all of the studies that explored provider experience and procedure impact studied intubation. Few studies provided a priori performance criteria for any evaluation metric, or referenced any external guidelines by which to bench mark performance. CONCLUSION: With respect to aerosol containment, ACDs should reduce exposure among HCP with the device compared with the absence of the device, and provide ≥90% reduction in respirable aerosols, equivalent in performance to N95 filtering facepiece respirators, if the goal is to reduce reliance on personal protective equipment. The ACD should not increase awkward or uncomfortable postures, or adversely impact biomechanics of the procedure itself as this could have implications for procedure outcomes. A variety of standardized instruments exist to assess the experience of patients and healthcare personnel. Integration of ACDs into routine clinical practice requires rigorous studies of aerosol containment and the user experience.

Impact of respiratory aerosol size and number distribution on the relative importance of different routes in SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

Exploring the relative importance of different routes in SARS-CoV-2 transmission is crucial in infection prevention. However, even in the same environmental setting, the relative importance of different routes has varied in different studies. We hypothesize that respiratory aerosol size and number distribution might play a key role. In this study, size and number distribution of respiratory droplets emitted from breathing, talking, and coughing were identified from PubMed and Web of Science. The infection risk of SARS-CoV-2 via airborne, droplet, and fomite transmission routes was modeled in a household and a healthcare setting. The relative importance of three routes varied with different size distributions in both settings. Generally, the contribution of the airborne route increased with the volume percentage of respirable droplets emitted. And the increase of the total number of emitted droplets leads to an increase in the contribution of tdroplet route. In the healthcare setting, as the total number of emitted droplets increased from 110 to 4,973, the contribution of droplet route increased from 62.24% to 98.11%. Next, by considering the combination of breathing, coughing, and talking when the infected person was asymptomatic, the airborne route predominated over the droplet and contact routes. When the infected person had developed symptoms, that is, cough, the droplet route played a dominant role in SARS-CoV-2 transmission. In conclusion, risk analyses will be improved with improved sampling methods that enable characterization of viruses within respiratory droplets of different sizes.

Exposure frequency, intensity, and duration: What we know about work-related asthma risks for healthcare workers from cleaning and disinfection.

The objective of this review was to scope the current evidence base related to three exposure assessment concepts: frequency, intensity, and duration (latency) for cleaning and disinfection exposures in healthcare and subsequent work-related asthma risks. A search strategy was developed addressing intersections of four main concepts: (1) work-related asthma; (2) occupation (healthcare workers/nurses); (3) cleaning and disinfection; and (4) exposure. Three databases were searched: Embase, PubMed, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) database. Data were extracted related to three main components of risk assessment: (1) exposure frequency, (2) exposure intensity, and (3) exposure duration. Latency data were analyzed using an exponential distribution fit, and extracted concentration data were compared to occupational exposure limits. The final number of included sources from which data were extracted was 133. Latency periods for occupational asthma were exponentially distributed, with a mean waiting time (1/λ) of 4.55 years. No extracted concentration data were above OELs except for some formaldehyde and glutaraldehyde concentrations. Data from included sources also indicated some evidence for a dose-response relationship regarding increased frequency yielding increased risk, but this relationship is unclear due to potential confounders (differences in role/task and associated exposure) and the healthy worker effect. Data priority needs to include linking concentration data to health outcomes, as most current literature does not include both types of measurements in a single study, leading to uncertainty in dose-response relationships.

Transmission of Respiratory Viral Diseases to Health Care Workers: COVID-19 as an Example.

Health care workers (HCWs) can acquire infectious diseases, including coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), from patients. Herein, COVID-19 is used with the source-pathway-receptor framework as an example to assess evidence for the roles of aerosol transmission and indirect contact transmission in viral respiratory infectious diseases. Evidence for both routes is strong for COVID-19 and other respiratory viruses, but aerosol transmission is likely dominant for COVID-19. Key knowledge gaps about transmission processes and control strategies include the distribution of viable virus among respiratory aerosols of different sizes, the mechanisms and efficiency by which virus deposited on the facial mucous membrane moves to infection sites inside the body, and the performance of source controls such as face coverings and aerosol containment devices. To ensure that HCWs are adequately protected from infection, guidelines and regulations must be updated to reflect the evidence that respiratory viruses are transmitted via aerosols.

Efficacy of EPA-registered disinfectants against two human norovirus surrogates and Clostridioides difficile endospores.

AIMS: To determine the efficacy of a panel of nine EPA-registered disinfectants against two human norovirus (HuNoV) surrogates (feline calicivirus [FCV] and Tulane virus [TuV]) and Clostridioides difficile endospores. METHODS AND RESULTS: Nine EPA-registered products, five of which contained H2 O2 as active ingredient, were tested against infectious FCV, TuV and C. difficile endospores using two ASTM methods, a suspension and carrier test. Efficacy claims against FCV were confirmed for 8 of 9 products. The most efficacious product containing H2 O2 as ingredient achieved a >5.1 log reduction of FCV and >3.1 log reduction of TuV after 5 min, and >6.0 log reduction of C. difficile endospores after 10 min. Of the five products containing H2 O2 , no strong correlation (R2  = 0.25, p = 0.03) was observed between disinfection efficacy and H2 O2 concentration. Addition of 0.025% ferrous sulphate to 1% H2 O2 solution improved efficacy against FCV, TuV and C. difficile. CONCLUSION: Disinfectants containing H2 O2 are the most efficacious disinfection products against FCV, TuV and C. difficile endospores. Product formulation, rather than the concentration of H2 O2 in a product, impacts the efficacy of a disinfection product. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF STUDY: H2 O2 -based disinfectants are efficacious against surrogate viruses for HuNoV and C. difficile endospores.

Influence of face shields on exposures to respirable aerosol.

The objective of this study was to determine the influence of face shields on the concentration of respirable aerosols in the breathing zone of the wearer. The experimental approach involved the generation of poly-dispersed respirable test dust aerosol in a low-speed wind tunnel over 15 min, with a downstream breathing mannequin. Aerosol concentrations were measured in the breathing zone of the mannequin and at an upstream location using two laser spectrophotometers that measured particle number concentration over the range 0.25-31 µm. Three face shield designs were tested (A, B, and C) and were positioned on the mannequin operated at a high and low breathing rate. Efficiency-the reduction in aerosol concentration in the breathing zone-was calculated as a function of particle size and overall, for each face shield. Face shield A, a bucket hat with flexible shield, had the highest efficiency, approximately 95%, while more traditional face shield designs had efficiency 53-78%, depending on face shield and breathing rate. Efficiency varied by particle size, but the pattern differed among face shield designs. Face shields decreased the concentration of respirable aerosols in the breathing zone when aerosols were carried perpendicular to the face. Additional research is needed to understand the impact of face shield position relative to the source.

Contribuciones relativas de las vías de transmisión de la COVID-19 entre el personal sanitario que presta atención a pacientes.

RESUMENLas vías de transmisión de la COVID-19 desde pacientes infectados al personal de la salud son actualmente objeto de debate, pero su consideración resulta fundamental para la selección del equipo de protección personal. El objetivo de este documento es explorar las contribuciones de tres vías de transmisión-contacto, gota e inhalación-al riesgo de infección de COVID-19 adquirida por el personal sanitario en el ámbito laboral. El método consistió en la evaluación cuantitativa de los riesgos microbianos y de un modelo de exposición cuyos posibles parámetros se basaron en datos específicos del virus SARS-CoV-2 cuando se disponía de ellos. El hallazgo clave fue que las vías de transmisión por gotas e inhalación predominan sobre la vía de contacto, contribuyendo en promedio 35%, 57% y 8.2% a la probabilidad de infección cuando no se usa equipo de protección personal. En promedio, 80% de la exposición a la inhalación ocurre cuando el personal sanitario está cerca de los pacientes. La contribución relativa de las gotas y la inhalación depende de la emisión de SARS-CoV-2 en las partículas respirables (<10 µm) a través de la exhalación, y la inhalación se vuelve predominante, en promedio, cuando la emisión supera las cinco copias genéticas por minuto. La concentración prevista del SARS-CoV-2 en el aire de la habitación del paciente es baja (<1 copia del gen por m3 en promedio) y probablemente se encuentre por debajo del límite de cuantificación de muchos métodos de muestreo del aire. Los resultados demuestran el valor que supone la protección respiratoria del personal sanitario y que el muestreo de campo puede no ser lo suficientemente sensible para verificar la contribución que realiza la inhalación del SARS-CoV-2 al riesgo de infección de COVID-19 adquirida por el personal. La emisión e ineficacia del SARS-CoV-2 en gotas respiratorias de diferente tamaño es aún una brecha en el conocimiento, fundamental para comprender y controlar la transmisión de la COVID-19.

Prácticas de retiro del equipo de protección personal para personal sanitario.

RESUMENCuando se retira el equipo de protección personal (EPP), los patógenos pueden transferirse desde el EPP al cuerpo de los trabajadores de la salud, poniendo en riesgo de exposición e infección tanto a ellos mismos como a sus pacientes. Entre marzo de 2017 y abril de 2018 se observaron las prácticas de retirada del EPP del personal sanitario que atendía pacientes con infecciones respiratorias virales en un hospital de atención de enfermedades agudas. Un observador capacitado registró el desempeño del personal sanitario cuando retiraba el EPP dentro de las habitaciones de los pacientes, utilizando una lista de verificación predefinida basada en las directrices de los Centros para el Control y Prevención de Enfermedades (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC). Se observaron 162 prácticas de retirada durante el cuidado de 52 pacientes infectados con patógenos virales respiratorios. De estos 52 pacientes, 30 estaban en aislamiento por gota y contacto, 21 en aislamiento por gota y uno en aislamiento de contacto. En general, en 90% de los casos la retirada del EPP observada se realizó de manera incorrecta, ya sea en cuanto a la secuencia de retirada, la técnica de retirada o el uso del EPP apropiado. Los errores más comunes consistieron en quitarse la bata por adelante, retirar la pantalla facial de la mascarilla y tocar superficies y EPP potencialmente contaminados durante el proceso. Las desviaciones del protocolo recomendado para retirar el EPP son comunes y pueden aumentar el potencial de contaminación de la ropa o la piel del personal sanitario después de proporcionar atención. Existe una clara necesidad de cambiar el enfoque utilizado para capacitar al personal en las prácticas de retirada del EPP.

Respirators, face masks, and their risk reductions via multiple transmission routes for first responders within an ambulance.

First responders may have high SARS-CoV-2 infection risks due to working with potentially infected patients in enclosed spaces. The study objective was to estimate infection risks per transport for first responders and quantify how first responder use of N95 respirators and patient use of cloth masks can reduce these risks. A model was developed for two Scenarios: an ambulance transport with a patient actively emitting a virus in small aerosols that could lead to airborne transmission (Scenario 1) and a subsequent transport with the same respirator or mask use conditions, an uninfected patient; and remaining airborne SARS-CoV-2 and contaminated surfaces due to aerosol deposition from the previous transport (Scenario 2). A compartmental Monte Carlo simulation model was used to estimate the dispersion and deposition of SARS-CoV-2 and subsequent infection risks for first responders, accounting for variability and uncertainty in input parameters (i.e., transport duration, transfer efficiencies, SARS-CoV-2 emission rates from infected patients, etc.). Infection risk distributions and changes in concentration on hands and surfaces over time were estimated across sub-Scenarios of first responder respirator use and patient cloth mask use. For Scenario 1, predicted mean infection risks were reduced by 69%, 48%, and 85% from a baseline risk (no respirators or face masks used) of 2.9 × 10-2 ± 3.4 × 10-2 when simulated first responders wore respirators, the patient wore a cloth mask, and when first responders and the patient wore respirators or a cloth mask, respectively. For Scenario 2, infection risk reductions for these same Scenarios were 69%, 50%, and 85%, respectively (baseline risk of 7.2 × 10-3 ± 1.0 × 10-2). While aerosol transmission routes contributed more to viral dose in Scenario 1, our simulations demonstrate the ability of face masks worn by patients to additionally reduce surface transmission by reducing viral deposition on surfaces. Based on these simulations, we recommend the patient wear a face mask and first responders wear respirators, when possible, and disinfection should prioritize high use equipment.

Quantifying the relative impact of contact heterogeneity on MRSA transmission in ICUs - a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: An efficient surface cleaning strategy would first target cleaning to surfaces that make large contributions to the risk of infections. METHODS: In this study, we used data from the literature about methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and developed an ordinary differential equations based mathematical model to quantify the impact of contact heterogeneity on MRSA transmission in a hypothetical 6-bed intensive care unit (ICU). The susceptible patients are divided into two types, these who are cared by the same nurse as the MRSA infected patient (Type 1) and these who are not (Type 2). RESULTS: The results showed that the mean MRSA concentration on three kinds of susceptible patient nearby surfaces was significantly linearly associated with the hand-touch frequency (p < 0.05). The noncompliance of daily cleaning on patient nearby high-touch surfaces (HTSs) had the most impact on MRSA transmission. If the HTSs were not cleaned, the MRSA exposure to Type 1 and 2 susceptible patients would increase 118.4% (standard deviation (SD): 33.0%) and 115.4% (SD: 30.5%) respectively. The communal surfaces (CSs) had the least impact, if CSs were not cleaned, the MRSA exposure to Type 1 susceptible patient would only increase 1.7% (SD: 1.3). The impact of clinical equipment (CE) differed largely for two types of susceptible patients. If the CE was not cleaned, the exposure to Type 1 patients would only increase 8.4% (SD: 3.0%), while for Type 2 patients, it can increase 70.4% (SD: 25.4%). CONCLUSIONS: This study provided a framework to study the pathogen concentration dynamics on environmental surfaces and quantitatively showed the importance of cleaning patient nearby HTSs on controlling the nosocomial infection transmission via contact route.

Relative contributions of transmission routes for COVID-19 among healthcare personnel providing patient care.

The routes of COVID-19 transmission to healthcare personnel from infected patients is the subject of debate, but is critical to the selection of personal protective equipment. The objective of this paper was to explore the contributions of three transmission routes-contact, droplet, and inhalation-to the risk of occupationally acquired COVID-19 infection among healthcare personnel (HCP). The method was quantitative microbial risk assessment, and an exposure model, where possible model parameters were based on data specific to the SARS-CoV-2 virus when available. The key finding was that droplet and inhalation transmission routes predominate over the contact route, contributing 35%, 57%, and 8.2% of the probability of infection, on average, without use of personal protective equipment. On average, 80% of inhalation exposure occurs when HCP are near patients. The relative contribution of droplet and inhalation depends upon the emission of SARS-CoV-2 in respirable particles (<10 µm) through exhaled breath, and inhalation becomes predominant, on average, when emission exceeds five gene copies per min. The predicted concentration of SARS-CoV-2 in the air of the patient room is low (< 1 gene copy per m3 on average), and likely below the limit of quantification for many air sampling methods. The findings demonstrate the value of respiratory protection for HCP, and that field sampling may not be sensitive enough to verify the contribution of SARS-CoV-2 inhalation to the risk of occupationally acquired COVID-19 infection among healthcare personnel. The emission and infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 in respiratory droplets of different sizes is a critical knowledge gap for understanding and controlling COVID-19 transmission.

Environmental Contact and Self-contact Patterns of Healthcare Workers: Implications for Infection Prevention and Control.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory viruses on fomites can be transferred to sites susceptible to infection via contact by hands or other fomites. METHODS: Care for hospitalized patients with viral respiratory infections was observed in the patient room for 3-hour periods at an acute care academic medical center for over a 2 year period. One trained observer recorded the healthcare activities performed, contacts with fomites, and self-contacts made by healthcare workers (HCWs), while another observer recorded fomite contacts of patients during the encounter using predefined checklists. RESULTS: The surface contacted by HCWs during the majority of visits was the patient (90%). Environmental surfaces contacted by HCWs frequently during healthcare activities included the tray table (48%), bed surface (41%), bed rail (41%), computer station (37%), and intravenous pole (32%). HCWs touched their own torso and mask in 32% and 29% of the visits, respectively. HCWs' self-contacts differed significantly among HCW job roles, with providers and respiratory therapists contacting themselves significantly more times than nurses and nurse technicians (P < .05). When HCWs performed only 1 care activity, there were significant differences in the number of patient contacts and self-contacts that HCWs made during performance of multiple care activities (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: HCWs regularly contact environmental surfaces, patients, and themselves while providing care to patients with infectious diseases, varying among care activities and HCW job roles. These contacts may facilitate the transmission of infection to HCWs and susceptible patients.

Prenatal exposure to nitrate in drinking water and the risk of congenital anomalies.

BACKGROUND: Nitrate is a common water contaminant that has been associated with birth defects, although the evidence is limited. The purpose of this study was to examine whether maternal consumption of nitrate through drinking water is associated with an increased risk of congenital anomalies. METHODS: The study included a total of 348,250 singletons births from the state of Missouri between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2008. Individual-level birth defect data and maternal and child characteristics were obtained from the Missouri birth defects registry and state vital statistics records. Outcomes were linked with county-specific monthly estimates of the nitrate concentration in finished water, based on data collected for compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Standard. Poisson models were fit to examine the association between nitrate exposure and birth defects. Average nitrate exposure during the first trimester and over 12 months prior to birth were modeled as continuous variables. Sensitivity analyses included restriction of the sample to counties with <20% and <10% private well usage to reduce exposure misclassification as well as limiting the analyses to residents of rural counties only to account for potential confounding by urbanicity. RESULTS: Estimated water concentrations of nitrate were generally low and below the Environmental Protection Agency's maximum contaminant level of 10 mg/L. Nitrate exposure was associated with a significantly increased risk of limb deficiencies (RR for 1 mg/L (RR1) = 1.26, 95% CI = 1.05, 1.51) in models without well restriction. Nitrate was also weakly associated with an increased risk of congenital heart defects (RR1 = 1.13, 95%CI = 0.93, 1.51) and neural tube defects (RR1 = 1.18, 95%CI = 0.93, 1.51) in models with well restriction (<10%). CONCLUSION: The positive associations found between nitrate exposure via drinking water and congenital abnormalities are largely consistent with some previous epidemiologic studies. The results of this study should be interpreted with caution given limitations in our ability to estimate exposures and the lack information on some risk factors for congenital abnormalities. Our findings may have serious policy implications given that exposure levels in our study were well below current EPA standards for nitrate in drinking water.

Bibliometric analysis of cardiometabolic disorders studies involving NO2, PM2.5 and noise exposure.

BACKGROUND: This study uses bibliometric analysis to describe the state of research about the association of NO2, PM2.5 and noise exposures - three traffic-related pollutants - with cardiometabolic disorders. METHODS: We retrieved references published 1994-2017 from Scopus and classified references with respect to exposure, health outcome and study design using index keywords. Temporal trend, top cited references, used index keywords and the number of hypothesis testing and non-hypothesis testing study design for each group were identified. RESULTS: Results show PM2.5 is the most frequently studied exposure (47%), followed by both NO2 and PM2.5 exposure (29%). Only 3% of references considered multiple exposures between NO2 and/or PM2.5 and noise, and these were published after 2008. While we observed a growing trend in studies with NO2 and/or PM2.5 and noise and diabetes in the last decade, there is a diminishing trend in studies with noise and diabetes. Different patterns of study designs were found through H/NH ratio, the number of references classified as having a hypothesis (H)-testing design relative to the number of references classified as having a non-hypothesis (NH)-testing design. Studies with NO2 and/or PM2.5 exposure are more likely to have a H-testing design, while those with noise exposure are more likely to have a NH-testing design, such as cross-sectional study design. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude with three themes about research trends. First, the study of simultaneous exposures to multiple pollutants is a current trend, and likely to continue. Second, the association between traffic-related pollutants and diabetes and metabolic symptoms is an area for growth in research. Third, the transition to the use of H-testing study designs to explore associations between noise and cardiometabolic outcomes may be supported by improved understanding of the mechanism of action, and/or improvements to the accuracy and precision of air pollution and noise exposure assessments for environmental health research.

Utilizing the focused conversation method in qualitative public health research: a team-based approach.

BACKGROUND: Qualitative research studies are becoming increasingly necessary to understand the complex challenges in the healthcare setting. Successfully integrating interdisciplinary teams of investigators can be challenging, as investigators inherently view data through their disciplinary lens. Thus, new methods, such as focused conservation, are needed to facilitate qualitative data analysis by interdisciplinary teams. The purpose of this manuscript is to provide a clear description of how we implemented the focused conversation method to facilitate an organized data-driven discussion that responded to our study objectives and ensured participation of our interdisciplinary team. The focused conversation method has not, to our knowledge, been utilized for this purpose to date. METHODS: To better understand the experience of healthcare personnel (HCP) during preparations for the 2014-2015 Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) outbreak, we interviewed HCP who participated in decision making about EVD preparations and training of workers in the use of enhanced personal protective equipment ensembles in the metropolitan Chicagoland area of Illinois to attain a priori research objectives. We identified a systematic method - the focused conversation method - that enabled our interdisciplinary team to interactively contribute to the framing, analysis and interpretation of the data that would enable us to focus on our research objectives. RESULTS: The focused conversation developed to support our a priori research objective about the training of HCP in preparations included objective, reflective, interpretive and decisional questions. These questions grounded the conversation in the data, while leveraging discipline-specific lenses and professional experience in the analysis and interpretation. Insights from the conversation were reviewed later against interview transcripts to ensure validity. The conversation identified areas for future research directions and deficiencies in the interview instrument. CONCLUSIONS: The focused conversation is an efficient, organized method for analysis of qualitative data by an interdisciplinary team.

Potential for occupational exposures to pathogens during bronchoscopy procedures.

Bronchoscopy is classified as an aerosol-generating procedure, but it is unclear what drives the elevated infection risk observed among healthcare personnel performing the procedure. The objective of this study was to characterize pathways through which bronchoscopists may be exposed to infectious agents during bronchoscopy procedures. Aerosol number concentrations (0.2-1 µm aerodynamic diameter) were measured using a P-Trak Ultrafine Particle Counter 8525 and mass concentrations (<10 µm) were measured using a SidePak Personal Aerosol Monitor AM510 near the head of patients during bronchoscopy procedures. Procedure pathway, number of patient coughs, number of suctioning events, number of contacts with different surfaces by the pulmonologist, and the use and doffing of personal protective equipment were recorded by the investigator on a specially designed form. Any pulmonologist performing a bronchoscopy procedure was eligible to participate. A total of 18 procedures were observed. Mean particle number and mass concentrations were not elevated during procedures relative to those measured before or after the procedure, on average, but the concentrations were highly variable, exhibiting high levels periodically. Patients frequently coughed during procedures (median 65 coughs, range: 0-565 coughs), and suctioning was commonly performed (median 6.5 suctioning events, range: 0-42). In all procedures, pulmonologists contacted the patient (mean 22.3 contacts, range: 1-48), bronchoscope (mean 19.4 contacts, range: 1-46), and at least one environmental surface (mean 31.2 contacts, range: 3-62). In the majority of procedures, the participant contacted his or her body or personal protective equipment (PPE), with a mean of 17.3 contacts (range: 4-48). More often than not, the observed PPE doffing practices differed from those recommended. Bronchoscopy procedures were associated with short-term increased ultrafine or respirable aerosol concentrations, and there were opportunities for contact transmission.

Personal protective equipment doffing practices of healthcare workers.

During the doffing of personal protective equipment (PPE), pathogens can be transferred from the PPE to the bodies of healthcare workers (HCWs), putting HCWs and patients at risk of exposure and infection. PPE doffing practices of HCWs who cared for patients with viral respiratory infections were observed at an acute care hospital from March 2017 to April 2018. A trained observer recorded doffing performance of HCWs inside the patient rooms using a pre-defined checklist based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guideline. Doffing practices were observed 162 times during care of 52 patients infected with respiratory viral pathogens. Out of the 52 patients, 30 were in droplet and contact isolation, 21 were in droplet isolation, and 1 was in contact isolation. Overall, 90% of observed doffing was incorrect, with respect to the doffing sequence, doffing technique, or use of appropriate PPE. Common errors were doffing gown from the front, removing face shield of the mask, and touching potentially contaminated surfaces and PPE during doffing. Deviations from the recommended PPE doffing protocol are common and can increase potential for contamination of the HCW's clothing or skin after providing care. There is a clear need to change the approach used to training HCWs in PPE doffing practices.

Experience of Chicagoland acute care hospitals in preparing for Ebola virus disease, 2014-2015.

During the 2014-2015 Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) outbreak, hospitals in the United States selected personal protective equipment (PPE) and trained healthcare personnel (HCP) in anticipation of receiving EVD patients. To improve future preparations for high-consequence infectious diseases, it was important to understand factors that affected PPE selection and training in the context of the EVD outbreak. Semistructured interviews were conducted with HCP involved with decision-making during EVD preparations at acute care hospitals in the Chicago, IL area to gather information about the PPE selection and training process. HCP who received training were surveyed about elements of training and their perceived impact and overall experience by email invitation. A total of 28 HCP from 15 hospitals were interviewed, and 55 HCP completed the survey. Factors affecting PPE selection included: changing guidance, vendor supply, performance evaluations, and perceived risk and comfort for HCP. Cost did not affect selection. PPE acquisition challenges were mitigated by: sharing within hospital networks, reusing PPE during training, and improvising with existing PPE stock. Selected PPE ensembles were similar across sites. Training included hands-on activities with trained observers, instructional videos, and simulations/drills, which were felt to increase HCP confidence. Many felt refresher training would be helpful. Hands-on training was perceived to be effective, but there is a need to establish the appropriate frequency of refresher training frequency to maintain competence. Lacking confidence in the CDC guidance, interviewed trainers described turning to other sources of information and developing independent PPE evaluation and selection. Response to emerging and/or high consequence infectious diseases would be enhanced by transparent, risk-based guidance for PPE selection and training that addresses protection level, ease of use, ensembles, and availability.

Estimate of incidence and cost of recreational waterborne illness on United States surface waters.

BACKGROUND: Activities such as swimming, paddling, motor-boating, and fishing are relatively common on US surface waters. Water recreators have a higher rate of acute gastrointestinal illness, along with other illnesses including respiratory, ear, eye, and skin symptoms, compared to non-water recreators. The quantity and costs of such illnesses are unknown on a national scale. METHODS: Recreational waterborne illness incidence and severity were estimated using data from prospective cohort studies of water recreation, reports of recreational waterborne disease outbreaks, and national water recreation statistics. Costs associated with medication use, healthcare provider visits, emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, lost productivity, long-term sequelae, and mortality were aggregated. RESULTS: An estimated 4 billion surface water recreation events occur annually, resulting in an estimated 90 million illnesses nationwide and costs of $2.2- $3.7 billion annually (central 90% of values). Illnesses of moderate severity (visit to a health care provider or ED) were responsible for over 65% of the economic burden (central 90% of values: $1.4- $2.4 billion); severe illnesses (result in hospitalization or death) were responsible for approximately 8% of the total economic burden (central 90% of values: $108- $614 million). CONCLUSION: Recreational waterborne illnesses are associated with a substantial economic burden. These findings may be useful in cost-benefit analysis for water quality improvement and other risk reduction initiatives.