Assessing the Impact of 2-Step Clostridioides difficile Testing at the Healthcare Facility Level.

BACKGROUND: Two-step testing for Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) aims to improve diagnostic specificity but may also influence reported epidemiology and patterns of treatment. Some providers fear that 2-step testing may result in adverse outcomes if C. difficile is underdiagnosed. METHODS: Our primary objective was to assess the impact of 2-step testing on reported incidence of hospital-onset CDI (HO-CDI). As secondary objectives, we assessed the impact of 2-step testing on C. difficile-specific antibiotic use and colectomy rates as proxies for harm from underdiagnosis or delayed treatment. This longitudinal cohort study included 2 657 324 patient-days across 8 regional hospitals from July 2017 through March 2022. Impact of 2-step testing was assessed by time series analysis with generalized estimating equation regression models. RESULTS: Two-step testing was associated with a level decrease in HO-CDI incidence (incidence rate ratio, 0.53 [95% confidence interval {CI}, .48-.60]; P < .001), a similar level decrease in utilization rates for oral vancomycin and fidaxomicin (utilization rate ratio, 0.63 [95% CI, .58-.70]; P < .001), and no significant level (rate ratio, 1.16 [95% CI, .93-1.43]; P = .18) or trend (rate ratio, 0.85 [95% CI, .52-1.39]; P = .51) change in emergent colectomy rates. CONCLUSIONS: Two-step testing is associated with decreased reported incidence of HO-CDI, likely by improving diagnostic specificity. The parallel decrease in C. difficile-specific antibiotic use offers indirect reassurance against underdiagnosis of C. difficile infections still requiring treatment by clinician assessment. Similarly, the absence of any significant change in colectomy rates offers indirect reassurance against any rise in fulminant C. difficile requiring surgical management.

Declines in Influenza Vaccination Coverage Among Health Care Personnel in Acute Care Hospitals During the COVID-19 Pandemic - United States, 2017-2023.

Health care personnel (HCP) are recommended to receive annual vaccination against influenza to reduce influenza-related morbidity and mortality. Every year, acute care hospitals report receipt of influenza vaccination among HCP to CDC's National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN). This analysis used NHSN data to describe changes in influenza vaccination coverage among HCP in acute care hospitals before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Influenza vaccination among HCP increased during the prepandemic period from 88.6% during 2017-18 to 90.7% during 2019-20. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the percentage of HCP vaccinated against influenza decreased to 85.9% in 2020-21 and 81.1% in 2022-23. Additional efforts are needed to implement evidence-based strategies to increase vaccination coverage among HCP and to identify factors associated with recent declines in influenza vaccination coverage.

Influenza and Up-to-Date COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage Among Health Care Personnel - National Healthcare Safety Network, United States, 2022-23 Influenza Season.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends that health care personnel (HCP) receive an annual influenza vaccine and that everyone aged ≥6 months stay up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccination. Health care facilities report vaccination of HCP against influenza and COVID-19 to CDC's National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN). During January-June 2023, NHSN defined up-to-date COVID-19 vaccination as receipt of a bivalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccine dose or completion of a primary series within the preceding 2 months. This analysis describes influenza and up-to-date COVID-19 vaccination coverage among HCP working in acute care hospitals and nursing homes during the 2022-23 influenza season (October 1, 2022-March 31, 2023). Influenza vaccination coverage was 81.0% among HCP at acute care hospitals and 47.1% among those working at nursing homes. Up-to-date COVID-19 vaccination coverage was 17.2% among HCP working at acute care hospitals and 22.8% among those working at nursing homes. There is a need to promote evidence-based strategies to improve vaccination coverage among HCP. Tailored strategies might also be useful to reach all HCP with recommended vaccines and protect them and their patients from vaccine-preventable respiratory diseases.

Health Care Personnel Exposures to Subsequently Laboratory-Confirmed Monkeypox Patients - Colorado, 2022.

The risk for monkeypox transmission to health care personnel (HCP) caring for symptomatic patients is thought to be low but has not been thoroughly assessed in the context of the current global outbreak (1). Monkeypox typically spreads through close physical (often skin-to-skin) contact with lesions or scabs, body fluids, or respiratory secretions of a person with an active monkeypox infection. CDC currently recommends that HCP wear a gown, gloves, eye protection, and an N95 (or higher-level) respirator while caring for patients with suspected or confirmed monkeypox to protect themselves from infection† (1,2). The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) evaluated HCP exposures and personal protective equipment (PPE) use in health care settings during care of patients who subsequently received a diagnosis of Orthopoxvirus infection (presumptive monkeypox determined by a polymerase chain reaction [PCR] DNA assay) or monkeypox (real-time PCR assay and genetic sequencing performed by CDC). During May 1-July 31, 2022, a total of 313 HCP interacted with patients with subsequently diagnosed monkeypox infections while wearing various combinations of PPE; 23% wore all recommended PPE during their exposures. Twenty-eight percent of exposed HCP were considered to have had high- or intermediate-risk exposures and were therefore eligible to receive postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) with the JYNNEOS vaccine§; among those, 48% (12% of all exposed HCP) received the vaccine. PPE use varied by facility type: HCP in sexually transmitted infection (STI) clinics and community health centers reported the highest adherence to recommended PPE use, and primary and urgent care settings reported the lowest adherence. No HCP developed a monkeypox infection during the 21 days after exposure. These results suggest that the risk for transmission of monkeypox in health care settings is low. Infection prevention training is important in all health care settings, and these findings can guide future updates to PPE recommendations and risk classification in health care settings.

Update: Characteristics of Health Care Personnel with COVID-19 - United States, February 12-July 16, 2020.

As of September 21, 2020, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic had resulted in 6,786,352 cases and 199,024 deaths in the United States.* Health care personnel (HCP) are essential workers at risk for exposure to patients or infectious materials (1). The impact of COVID-19 on U.S. HCP was first described using national case surveillance data in April 2020 (2). Since then, the number of reported HCP with COVID-19 has increased tenfold. This update describes demographic characteristics, underlying medical conditions, hospitalizations, and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, stratified by vital status, among 100,570 HCP with COVID-19 reported to CDC during February 12-July 16, 2020. HCP occupation type and job setting are newly reported. HCP status was available for 571,708 (22%) of 2,633,585 cases reported to CDC. Most HCP with COVID-19 were female (79%), aged 16-44 years (57%), not hospitalized (92%), and lacked all 10 underlying medical conditions specified on the case report form† (56%). Of HCP with COVID-19, 641 died. Compared with nonfatal COVID-19 HCP cases, a higher percentage of fatal cases occurred in males (38% versus 22%), persons aged ≥65 years (44% versus 4%), non-Hispanic Asians (Asians) (20% versus 9%), non-Hispanic Blacks (Blacks) (32% versus 25%), and persons with any of the 10 underlying medical conditions specified on the case report form (92% versus 41%). From a subset of jurisdictions reporting occupation type or job setting for HCP with COVID-19, nurses were the most frequently identified single occupation type (30%), and nursing and residential care facilities were the most common job setting (67%). Ensuring access to personal protective equipment (PPE) and training, and practices such as universal use of face masks at work, wearing masks in the community, and observing social distancing remain critical strategies to protect HCP and those they serve.

Improving the Use of Personal Protective Equipment: Applying Lessons Learned.

Unrecognized transmission of pathogens in healthcare settings can lead to colonization and infection of both patients and healthcare personnel. The use of personal protective equipment (PPE) is an important strategy to protect healthcare personnel from contamination and to prevent the spread of pathogens to subsequent patients. However, optimal PPE use is difficult, and healthcare personnel may alter delivery of care because of the PPE. Here, we summarize recent research from the Prevention Epicenters Program on healthcare personnel contamination and improvement of the routine use of PPE as well as Ebola-specific PPE. Future efforts to optimize the use of PPE should include increasing adherence to protocols for PPE use, improving PPE design, and further research into the risks, benefits, and best practices of PPE use.

Tuberculosis Screening, Testing, and Treatment of U.S. Health Care Personnel: Recommendations from the National Tuberculosis Controllers Association and CDC, 2019.

The 2005 CDC guidelines for preventing Mycobacterium tuberculosis transmission in health care settings include recommendations for baseline tuberculosis (TB) screening of all U.S. health care personnel and annual testing for health care personnel working in medium-risk settings or settings with potential for ongoing transmission (1). Using evidence from a systematic review conducted by a National Tuberculosis Controllers Association (NTCA)-CDC work group, and following methods adapted from the Guide to Community Preventive Services (2,3), the 2005 CDC recommendations for testing U.S. health care personnel have been updated and now include 1) TB screening with an individual risk assessment and symptom evaluation at baseline (preplacement); 2) TB testing with an interferon-gamma release assay (IGRA) or a tuberculin skin test (TST) for persons without documented prior TB disease or latent TB infection (LTBI); 3) no routine serial TB testing at any interval after baseline in the absence of a known exposure or ongoing transmission; 4) encouragement of treatment for all health care personnel with untreated LTBI, unless treatment is contraindicated; 5) annual symptom screening for health care personnel with untreated LTBI; and 6) annual TB education of all health care personnel.

Transmission of Hepatitis A Virus through Combined Liver-Small Intestine-Pancreas Transplantation.

Although transmission of hepatitis A virus (HAV) through blood transfusion has been documented, transmission through organ transplantation has not been reported. In August 2015, state health officials in Texas, USA, were notified of 2 home health nurses with HAV infection whose only common exposure was a child who had undergone multi-visceral organ transplantation 9 months earlier. Specimens from the nurses, organ donor, and all organ recipients were tested and medical records reviewed to determine a possible infection source. Identical HAV RNA sequences were detected from the serum of both nurses and the organ donor, as well as from the multi-visceral organ recipient's serum and feces; this recipient's posttransplant liver and intestine biopsy specimens also had detectable virus. The other organ recipients tested negative for HAV RNA. Vaccination of the donor might have prevented infection in the recipient and subsequent transmission to the healthcare workers.

Notes from the Field: Health Care-Associated Hepatitis A Outbreak - Texas, 2015.

On August 27-28, 2015, the Texas Department of State Health Services received calls from Fort Bend County and Harris County health departments requesting postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) recommendations for contacts of two nurses (patients A and B) with confirmed hepatitis A virus (HAV) infection. Both nurses had symptom onset during August 15-19 and worked for the same pediatric home health care agency in another jurisdiction. Because of the proximity of the onset dates, a common source exposure was suspected. The state and local health departments began an investigation to identify potentially exposed patients, their families, and other agency personnel; offer PEP; and identify the source of exposure.

Active Tracing and Monitoring of Contacts Associated With the First Cluster of Ebola in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Following hospitalization of the first patient with Ebola virus disease diagnosed in the United States on 28 September 2014, contact tracing methods for Ebola were implemented. OBJECTIVE: To identify, risk-stratify, and monitor contacts of patients with Ebola. DESIGN: Descriptive investigation. SETTING: Dallas County, Texas, September to November 2014. PARTICIPANTS: Contacts of symptomatic patients with Ebola. MEASUREMENTS: Contact identification, exposure risk classification, symptom development, and Ebola. RESULTS: The investigation identified 179 contacts, 139 of whom were contacts of the index patient. Of 112 health care personnel (HCP) contacts of the index case, 22 (20%) had known unprotected exposures and 37 (30%) did not have known unprotected exposures but interacted with a patient or contaminated environment on multiple days. Transmission was confirmed in 2 HCP who had substantial interaction with the patient while wearing personal protective equipment. These HCP had 40 additional contacts. Of 20 community contacts of the index patient or the 2 HCP, 4 had high-risk exposures. Movement restrictions were extended to all 179 contacts; 7 contacts were quarantined. Seven percent (14 of 179) of contacts (1 community contact and 13 health care contacts) were evaluated for Ebola during the monitoring period. LIMITATION: Data cannot be used to infer whether in-person direct active monitoring is superior to active monitoring alone for early detection of symptomatic contacts. CONCLUSION: Contact tracing and monitoring approaches for Ebola were adapted to account for the evolving understanding of risks for unrecognized HCP transmission. HCP contacts in the United States without known unprotected exposures should be considered as having a low (but not zero) risk for Ebola and should be actively monitored for symptoms. Core challenges of contact tracing for high-consequence communicable diseases included rapid comprehensive contact identification, large-scale direct active monitoring of contacts, large-scale application of movement restrictions, and necessity of humanitarian support services to meet nonclinical needs of contacts. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Measles in Healthcare Facilities in the United States During the Postelimination Era, 2001-2014.

Between 2001 and 2014, 78 reported measles cases resulted from transmission in US healthcare facilities, and 29 healthcare personnel were infected from occupational exposure, 1 of whom transmitted measles to a patient. The economic impact of preventing and controlling measles transmission in healthcare facilities was $19 000-$114 286 per case.

Outbreak of Serratia marcescens bloodstream infections in patients receiving parenteral nutrition prepared by a compounding pharmacy.

BACKGROUND: Compounding pharmacies often prepare parenteral nutrition (PN) and must adhere to rigorous standards to avoid contamination of the sterile preparation. In March 2011, Serratia marcescens bloodstream infections (BSIs) were identified in 5 patients receiving PN from a single compounding pharmacy. An investigation was conducted to identify potential sources of contamination and prevent further infections. METHODS: Cases were defined as S. marcescens BSIs in patients receiving PN from the pharmacy between January and March 2011. We reviewed case patients' clinical records, evaluated pharmacy compounding practices, and obtained epidemiologically directed environmental cultures. Molecular relatedness of available Serratia isolates was determined by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE). RESULTS: Nineteen case patients were identified; 9 died. The attack rate for patients receiving PN in March was 35%. No case patients were younger than 18 years. In October 2010, the pharmacy began compounding and filter-sterilizing amino acid solution for adult PN using nonsterile amino acids due to a national manufacturer shortage. Review of this process identified breaches in mixing, filtration, and sterility testing practices. S. marcescens was identified from a pharmacy water faucet, mixing container, and opened amino acid powder. These isolates were indistinguishable from the outbreak strain by PFGE. CONCLUSIONS: Compounding of nonsterile amino acid components of PN was initiated due to a manufacturer shortage. Failure to follow recommended compounding standards contributed to an outbreak of S. marcescens BSIs. Improved adherence to sterile compounding standards, critical examination of standards for sterile compounding from nonsterile ingredients, and more rigorous oversight of compounding pharmacies is needed to prevent future outbreaks.

Hospital-associated outbreak of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus: a serologic, epidemiologic, and clinical description.

BACKGROUND: In April 2012, the Jordan Ministry of Health investigated an outbreak of lower respiratory illnesses at a hospital in Jordan; 2 fatal cases were retrospectively confirmed by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) to be the first detected cases of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS-CoV). METHODS: Epidemiologic and clinical characteristics of selected potential cases were assessed through serum blood specimens, medical record reviews, and interviews with surviving outbreak members, household contacts, and healthcare personnel. Cases of MERS-CoV infection were identified using 3 US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention serologic tests for detection of anti-MERS-CoV antibodies. RESULTS: Specimens and interviews were obtained from 124 subjects. Seven previously unconfirmed individuals tested positive for anti-MERS-CoV antibodies by at least 2 of 3 serologic tests, in addition to 2 fatal cases identified by rRT-PCR. The case-fatality rate among the 9 total cases was 22%. Six subjects were healthcare workers at the outbreak hospital, yielding an attack rate of 10% among potentially exposed outbreak hospital personnel. There was no evidence of MERS-CoV transmission at 2 transfer hospitals having acceptable infection control practices. CONCLUSIONS: Novel serologic tests allowed for the detection of otherwise unrecognized cases of MERS-CoV infection among contacts in a Jordanian hospital-associated respiratory illness outbreak in April 2012, resulting in a total of 9 test-positive cases. Serologic results suggest that further spread of this outbreak to transfer hospitals did not occur. Most subjects had no major, underlying medical conditions; none were on hemodialysis. Our observed case-fatality rate was lower than has been reported from outbreaks elsewhere.

Health care worker contact with MERS patient, Saudi Arabia.

To investigate potential transmission of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) to health care workers in a hospital, we serologically tested hospital contacts of the index case-patient in Saudi Arabia, 4 months after his death. None of the 48 contacts showed evidence of MERS-CoV infection.

First confirmed cases of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) infection in the United States, updated information on the epidemiology of MERS-CoV infection, and guidance for the public, clinicians, and public health authorities - May 2014.

Since mid-March 2014, the frequency with which cases of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) infection have been reported has increased, with the majority of recent cases reported from Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates (UAE). In addition, the frequency with which travel-associated MERS cases have been reported and the number of countries that have reported them to the World Health Organization (WHO) have also increased. The first case of MERS in the United States, identified in a traveler recently returned from Saudi Arabia, was reported to CDC by the Indiana State Department of Health on May 1, 2014, and confirmed by CDC on May 2. A second imported case of MERS in the United States, identified in a traveler from Saudi Arabia having no connection with the first case, was reported to CDC by the Florida Department of Health on May 11, 2014. The purpose of this report is to alert clinicians, health officials, and others to increase awareness of the need to consider MERS-CoV infection in persons who have recently traveled from countries in or near the Arabian Peninsula. This report summarizes recent epidemiologic information, provides preliminary descriptions of the cases reported from Indiana and Florida, and updates CDC guidance about patient evaluation, home care and isolation, specimen collection, and travel as of May 13, 2014.

CDC's Hospital-Onset Clostridioides difficile Prevention Framework in a Regional Hospital Network.

Importance: Despite modest reductions in the incidence of hospital-onset Clostridioides difficile infection (HO-CDI), CDI remains a leading cause of health care-associated infection. As no single intervention has proven highly effective on its own, a multifaceted approach to controlling HO-CDI is needed. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Strategies to Prevent Clostridioides difficile Infection in Acute Care Facilities Framework (hereafter, the Framework) in reducing HO-CDI incidence. Design, Setting, and Participants: This quality improvement study was performed within the Duke Infection Control Outreach Network from July 1, 2019, through March 31, 2022. In all, 20 hospitals in the network participated in an implementation study of the Framework recommendations, and 26 hospitals did not participate and served as controls. The Framework has 39 discrete intervention categories organized into 5 focal areas for CDI prevention: (1) isolation and contact precautions, (2) CDI confirmation, (3) environmental cleaning, (4) infrastructure development, and (5) antimicrobial stewardship engagement. Exposures: Monthly teleconferences supporting Framework implementation for the participating hospitals. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were HO-CDI incidence trends at participating hospitals compared with controls and postintervention HO-CDI incidence at intervention sites compared with rates during the 24 months before the intervention. Results: The study sample included a total of 2184 HO-CDI cases and 7 269 429 patient-days. In the intervention cohort of 20 participating hospitals, there were 1403 HO-CDI cases and 3 513 755 patient-days, with a median (IQR) HO-CDI incidence of 2.8 (2.0-4.3) cases per 10 000 patient-days. The first analysis included an additional 3 755 674 patient-days and 781 HO-CDI cases among the 26 controls, with a median (IQR) HO-CDI incidence of 1.1 (0.7-2.7) case per 10 000 patient-days. The second analysis included an additional 2 538 874 patient-days and 1751 HO-CDI cases, with a median (IQR) HO-CDI incidence of 5.9 (2.7-8.9) cases per 10 000 patient-days, from participating hospitals 24 months before the intervention. In the first analysis, intervention sites had a steeper decline in HO-CDI incidence over time relative to controls (yearly incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.79 [95% CI, 0.67-0.94]; P = .01), but the decline was not temporally associated with study participation. In the second analysis, HO-CDI incidence was declining in participating hospitals before the intervention, and the rate of decline did not change during the intervention. The degree to which hospitals implemented the Framework was associated with steeper declines in HO-CDI incidence (yearly IRR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.90-0.99]; P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance: In this quality improvement study of a regional hospital network, implementation of the Framework was not temporally associated with declining HO-CDI incidence. Further study of the effectiveness of multimodal prevention measures for controlling HO-CDI is warranted.

Continued increases in the incidence of healthcare-associated infection (HAI) during the second year of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

Data from the National Healthcare Safety Network were analyzed to assess the impact of COVID-19 on the incidence of healthcare-associated infections (HAI) during 2021. Standardized infection ratios were significantly higher than those during the prepandemic period, particularly during 2021-Q1 and 2021-Q3. The incidence of HAI was elevated during periods of high COVID-19 hospitalizations.