Decolonization in Nursing Homes to Prevent Infection and Hospitalization.

BACKGROUND: Nursing home residents are at high risk for infection, hospitalization, and colonization with multidrug-resistant organisms. METHODS: We performed a cluster-randomized trial of universal decolonization as compared with routine-care bathing in nursing homes. The trial included an 18-month baseline period and an 18-month intervention period. Decolonization entailed the use of chlorhexidine for all routine bathing and showering and administration of nasal povidone-iodine twice daily for the first 5 days after admission and then twice daily for 5 days every other week. The primary outcome was transfer to a hospital due to infection. The secondary outcome was transfer to a hospital for any reason. An intention-to-treat (as-assigned) difference-in-differences analysis was performed for each outcome with the use of generalized linear mixed models to compare the intervention period with the baseline period across trial groups. RESULTS: Data were obtained from 28 nursing homes with a total of 28,956 residents. Among the transfers to a hospital in the routine-care group, 62.2% (the mean across facilities) were due to infection during the baseline period and 62.6% were due to infection during the intervention period (risk ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.96 to 1.04). The corresponding values in the decolonization group were 62.9% and 52.2% (risk ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.79 to 0.88), for a difference in risk ratio, as compared with routine care, of 16.6% (95% CI, 11.0 to 21.8; P<0.001). Among the discharges from the nursing home in the routine-care group, transfer to a hospital for any reason accounted for 36.6% during the baseline period and for 39.2% during the intervention period (risk ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.12). The corresponding values in the decolonization group were 35.5% and 32.4% (risk ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88 to 0.96), for a difference in risk ratio, as compared with routine care, of 14.6% (95% CI, 9.7 to 19.2). The number needed to treat was 9.7 to prevent one infection-related hospitalization and 8.9 to prevent one hospitalization for any reason. CONCLUSIONS: In nursing homes, universal decolonization with chlorhexidine and nasal iodophor led to a significantly lower risk of transfer to a hospital due to infection than routine care. (Funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; Protect ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03118232.).

Reducing Hospitalizations and Multidrug-Resistant Organisms via Regional Decolonization in Hospitals and Nursing Homes.

Importance: Infections due to multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) are associated with increased morbidity, mortality, length of hospitalization, and health care costs. Regional interventions may be advantageous in mitigating MDROs and associated infections. Objective: To evaluate whether implementation of a decolonization collaborative is associated with reduced regional MDRO prevalence, incident clinical cultures, infection-related hospitalizations, costs, and deaths. Design, Setting, and Participants: This quality improvement study was conducted from July 1, 2017, to July 31, 2019, across 35 health care facilities in Orange County, California. Exposures: Chlorhexidine bathing and nasal iodophor antisepsis for residents in long-term care and hospitalized patients in contact precautions (CP). Main Outcomes and Measures: Baseline and end of intervention MDRO point prevalence among participating facilities; incident MDRO (nonscreening) clinical cultures among participating and nonparticipating facilities; and infection-related hospitalizations and associated costs and deaths among residents in participating and nonparticipating nursing homes (NHs). Results: Thirty-five facilities (16 hospitals, 16 NHs, 3 long-term acute care hospitals [LTACHs]) adopted the intervention. Comparing decolonization with baseline periods among participating facilities, the mean (SD) MDRO prevalence decreased from 63.9% (12.2%) to 49.9% (11.3%) among NHs, from 80.0% (7.2%) to 53.3% (13.3%) among LTACHs (odds ratio [OR] for NHs and LTACHs, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.40-0.57), and from 64.1% (8.5%) to 55.4% (13.8%) (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.93) among hospitalized patients in CP. When comparing decolonization with baseline among NHs, the mean (SD) monthly incident MDRO clinical cultures changed from 2.7 (1.9) to 1.7 (1.1) among participating NHs, from 1.7 (1.4) to 1.5 (1.1) among nonparticipating NHs (group × period interaction reduction, 30.4%; 95% CI, 16.4%-42.1%), from 25.5 (18.6) to 25.0 (15.9) among participating hospitals, from 12.5 (10.1) to 14.3 (10.2) among nonparticipating hospitals (group × period interaction reduction, 12.9%; 95% CI, 3.3%-21.5%), and from 14.8 (8.6) to 8.2 (6.1) among LTACHs (all facilities participating; 22.5% reduction; 95% CI, 4.4%-37.1%). For NHs, the rate of infection-related hospitalizations per 1000 resident-days changed from 2.31 during baseline to 1.94 during intervention among participating NHs, and from 1.90 to 2.03 among nonparticipating NHs (group × period interaction reduction, 26.7%; 95% CI, 19.0%-34.5%). Associated hospitalization costs per 1000 resident-days changed from $64 651 to $55 149 among participating NHs and from $55 151 to $59 327 among nonparticipating NHs (group × period interaction reduction, 26.8%; 95% CI, 26.7%-26.9%). Associated hospitalization deaths per 1000 resident-days changed from 0.29 to 0.25 among participating NHs and from 0.23 to 0.24 among nonparticipating NHs (group × period interaction reduction, 23.7%; 95% CI, 4.5%-43.0%). Conclusions and Relevance: A regional collaborative involving universal decolonization in long-term care facilities and targeted decolonization among hospital patients in CP was associated with lower MDRO carriage, infections, hospitalizations, costs, and deaths.

Presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infections and Transmission in a Skilled Nursing Facility.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection can spread rapidly within skilled nursing facilities. After identification of a case of Covid-19 in a skilled nursing facility, we assessed transmission and evaluated the adequacy of symptom-based screening to identify infections in residents. METHODS: We conducted two serial point-prevalence surveys, 1 week apart, in which assenting residents of the facility underwent nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal testing for SARS-CoV-2, including real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR), viral culture, and sequencing. Symptoms that had been present during the preceding 14 days were recorded. Asymptomatic residents who tested positive were reassessed 7 days later. Residents with SARS-CoV-2 infection were categorized as symptomatic with typical symptoms (fever, cough, or shortness of breath), symptomatic with only atypical symptoms, presymptomatic, or asymptomatic. RESULTS: Twenty-three days after the first positive test result in a resident at this skilled nursing facility, 57 of 89 residents (64%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Among 76 residents who participated in point-prevalence surveys, 48 (63%) tested positive. Of these 48 residents, 27 (56%) were asymptomatic at the time of testing; 24 subsequently developed symptoms (median time to onset, 4 days). Samples from these 24 presymptomatic residents had a median rRT-PCR cycle threshold value of 23.1, and viable virus was recovered from 17 residents. As of April 3, of the 57 residents with SARS-CoV-2 infection, 11 had been hospitalized (3 in the intensive care unit) and 15 had died (mortality, 26%). Of the 34 residents whose specimens were sequenced, 27 (79%) had sequences that fit into two clusters with a difference of one nucleotide. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid and widespread transmission of SARS-CoV-2 was demonstrated in this skilled nursing facility. More than half of residents with positive test results were asymptomatic at the time of testing and most likely contributed to transmission. Infection-control strategies focused solely on symptomatic residents were not sufficient to prevent transmission after SARS-CoV-2 introduction into this facility.

Epidemiology of Covid-19 in a Long-Term Care Facility in King County, Washington.

BACKGROUND: Long-term care facilities are high-risk settings for severe outcomes from outbreaks of Covid-19, owing to both the advanced age and frequent chronic underlying health conditions of the residents and the movement of health care personnel among facilities in a region. METHODS: After identification on February 28, 2020, of a confirmed case of Covid-19 in a skilled nursing facility in King County, Washington, Public Health-Seattle and King County, aided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, launched a case investigation, contact tracing, quarantine of exposed persons, isolation of confirmed and suspected cases, and on-site enhancement of infection prevention and control. RESULTS: As of March 18, a total of 167 confirmed cases of Covid-19 affecting 101 residents, 50 health care personnel, and 16 visitors were found to be epidemiologically linked to the facility. Most cases among residents included respiratory illness consistent with Covid-19; however, in 7 residents no symptoms were documented. Hospitalization rates for facility residents, visitors, and staff were 54.5%, 50.0%, and 6.0%, respectively. The case fatality rate for residents was 33.7% (34 of 101). As of March 18, a total of 30 long-term care facilities with at least one confirmed case of Covid-19 had been identified in King County. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of rapidly escalating Covid-19 outbreaks, proactive steps by long-term care facilities to identify and exclude potentially infected staff and visitors, actively monitor for potentially infected patients, and implement appropriate infection prevention and control measures are needed to prevent the introduction of Covid-19.

Modeling the Effectiveness of Healthcare Personnel Reactive Testing and Screening for the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron Variant Within Nursing Homes.

The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron variant has been hypothesized to exhibit faster clearance (time from peak viral concentration to clearance of acute infection), decreased sensitivity of antigen tests, and increased immune escape (the ability of the variant to evade immunity conferred by past infection or vaccination) compared to prior variants. These factors necessitate reevaluation of prevention and control strategies, particularly in high-risk, congregate settings like nursing homes that have been heavily impacted by other coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) variants. We used a simple model representing individual-level viral shedding dynamics to estimate the optimal strategy for testing nursing home healthcare personnel and quantify potential reduction in transmission of COVID-19. This provides a framework for prospectively evaluating testing strategies in emerging variant scenarios when data are limited. We find that case-initiated testing prevents 38% of transmission within a facility if implemented within a day of an index case testing positive, and screening testing strategies could prevent 30% to 78% of transmission within a facility if implemented daily, depending on test sensitivity.

Rapid Assessment and Containment of Candida auris Transmission in Postacute Care Settings-Orange County, California, 2019.

BACKGROUND: Candida auris, a multidrug-resistant yeast, can spread rapidly in ventilator-capable skilled-nursing facilities (vSNFs) and long-term acute care hospitals (LTACHs). In 2018, a laboratory serving LTACHs in southern California began identifying species of Candida that were detected in urine specimens to enhance surveillance of C auris, and C auris was identified in February 2019 in a patient in an Orange County (OC), California, LTACH. Further investigation identified C auris at 3 associated facilities. OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence of C auris and infection prevention and control (IPC) practices in LTACHs and vSNFs in OC. DESIGN: Point prevalence surveys (PPSs), postdischarge testing for C auris detection, and assessments of IPC were done from March to October 2019. SETTING: All LTACHs (n = 3) and vSNFs (n = 14) serving adult patients in OC. PARTICIPANTS: Current or recent patients in LTACHs and vSNFs in OC. INTERVENTION: In facilities where C auris was detected, PPSs were repeated every 2 weeks. Ongoing IPC support was provided. MEASUREMENTS: Antifungal susceptibility testing and whole-genome sequencing to assess isolate relatedness. RESULTS: Initial PPSs at 17 facilities identified 44 additional patients with C auris in 3 (100%) LTACHs and 6 (43%) vSNFs, with the first bloodstream infection reported in May 2019. By October 2019, a total of 182 patients with C auris were identified by serial PPSs and discharge testing. Of 81 isolates that were sequenced, all were clade III and highly related. Assessments of IPC identified gaps in hand hygiene, transmission-based precautions, and environmental cleaning. The outbreak was contained to 2 facilities by October 2019. LIMITATION: Acute care hospitals were not assessed, and IPC improvements over time could not be rigorously evaluated. CONCLUSION: Enhanced laboratory surveillance and prompt investigation with IPC support enabled swift identification and containment of C auris. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Evaluation of a Virtual Training to Enhance Public Health Capacity for COVID-19 Infection Prevention and Control in Nursing Homes.

CONTEXT: Between April 2020 and May 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) awarded more than $40 billion to health departments nationwide for COVID-19 prevention and response activities. One of the identified priorities for this investment was improving infection prevention and control (IPC) in nursing homes. PROGRAM: CDC developed a virtual course to train new and less experienced public health staff in core healthcare IPC principles and in the application of CDC COVID-19 healthcare IPC guidance for nursing homes. IMPLEMENTATION: From October 2020 to August 2021, the CDC led training sessions for 12 cohorts of public health staff using pretraining reading materials, case-based scenarios, didactic presentations, peer-learning opportunities, and subject matter expert-led discussions. Multiple electronic assessments were distributed to learners over time to measure changes in self-reported knowledge and confidence and to collect feedback on the course. Participating public health programs were also assessed to measure overall course impact. EVALUATION: Among 182 enrolled learners, 94% completed the training. Most learners were infection preventionists (42%) or epidemiologists (38%), had less than 1 year of experience in their health department role (75%), and had less than 1 year of subject matter experience (54%). After training, learners reported increased knowledge and confidence in applying the CDC COVID-19 healthcare IPC guidance for nursing homes (≥81%) with the greatest increase in performing COVID-19 IPC consultations and assessments (87%). The majority of participating programs agreed that the course provided an overall benefit (88%) and reduced training burden (72%). DISCUSSION: The CDC's virtual course was effective in increasing public health capacity for COVID-19 healthcare IPC in nursing homes and provides a possible model to increase IPC capacity for other infectious diseases and other healthcare settings. Future virtual healthcare IPC courses could be enhanced by tailoring materials to health department needs, reinforcing training through applied learning experiences, and supporting mechanisms to retain trained staff.

Modeling Effectiveness of Testing Strategies to Prevent Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Nursing Homes-United States, 2020.

BACKGROUND: Identifying asymptomatic individuals early through serial testing is recommended to control coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in nursing homes, both in response to an outbreak ("outbreak testing" of residents and healthcare personnel) and in facilities without outbreaks ("nonoutbreak testing" of healthcare personnel). The effectiveness of outbreak testing and isolation with or without nonoutbreak testing was evaluated. METHODS: Using published SARS-CoV-2 transmission parameters, the fraction of SARS-CoV-2 transmissions prevented through serial testing (weekly, every 3 days, or daily) and isolation of asymptomatic persons compared with symptom-based testing and isolation was evaluated through mathematical modeling using a Reed-Frost model to estimate the percentage of cases prevented (ie, "effectiveness") through either outbreak testing alone or outbreak plus nonoutbreak testing. The potential effect of simultaneous decreases (by 10%) in the effectiveness of isolating infected individuals when instituting testing strategies was also evaluated. RESULTS: Modeling suggests that outbreak testing could prevent 54% (weekly testing with 48-hour test turnaround) to 92% (daily testing with immediate results and 50% relative sensitivity) of SARS-CoV-2 infections. Adding nonoutbreak testing could prevent up to an additional 8% of SARS-CoV-2 infections (depending on test frequency and turnaround time). However, added benefits of nonoutbreak testing were mostly negated if accompanied by decreases in infection control practice. CONCLUSIONS: When combined with high-quality infection control practices, outbreak testing could be an effective approach to preventing COVID-19 in nursing homes, particularly if optimized through increased test frequency and use of tests with rapid turnaround.

Investigation of a Suspect Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 and Influenza A Mixed Outbreak: Lessons Learned for Long-Term Care Facilities Nationwide.

A suspected outbreak of influenza A and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) at a long-term care facility in Los Angeles County was, months later, determined to not involve influenza. To prevent inadvertent transmission of infections, facilities should use highly specific influenza diagnostics and follow Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines that specifically address infection control challenges.

Early COVID-19 First-Dose Vaccination Coverage Among Residents and Staff Members of Skilled Nursing Facilities Participating in the Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program - United States, December 2020-January 2021.

Residents and staff members of long-term care facilities (LTCFs), because they live and work in congregate settings, are at increased risk for infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (1,2). In particular, skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), LTCFs that provide skilled nursing care and rehabilitation services for persons with complex medical needs, have been documented settings of COVID-19 outbreaks (3). In addition, residents of LTCFs might be at increased risk for severe outcomes because of their advanced age or the presence of underlying chronic medical conditions (4). As a result, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has recommended that residents and staff members of LTCFs be offered vaccination in the initial COVID-19 vaccine allocation phase (Phase 1a) in the United States (5). In December 2020, CDC launched the Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program* to facilitate on-site vaccination of residents and staff members at enrolled LTCFs. To evaluate early receipt of vaccine during the first month of the program, the number of eligible residents and staff members in enrolled SNFs was estimated using resident census data from the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN†) and staffing data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Payroll-Based Journal.§ Among 11,460 SNFs with at least one vaccination clinic during the first month of the program (December 18, 2020-January 17, 2021), an estimated median of 77.8% of residents (interquartile range [IQR] = 61.3%- 93.1%) and a median of 37.5% (IQR = 23.2%- 56.8%) of staff members per facility received ≥1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine through the Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program. The program achieved moderately high coverage among residents; however, continued development and implementation of focused communication and outreach strategies are needed to improve vaccination coverage among staff members in SNFs and other long-term care settings.

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.

Characterization of COVID-19 in Assisted Living Facilities - 39 States, October 2020.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has highlighted the vulnerability of residents and staff members in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) (1). Although skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) certified by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) have federal COVID-19 reporting requirements, national surveillance data are less readily available for other types of LTCFs, such as assisted living facilities (ALFs) and those providing similar residential care. However, many state and territorial health departments publicly report COVID-19 surveillance data across various types of LTCFs. These data were systematically retrieved from health department websites to characterize COVID-19 cases and deaths in ALF residents and staff members. Limited ALF COVID-19 data were available for 39 states, although reporting varied. By October 15, 2020, among 28,623 ALFs, 6,440 (22%) had at least one COVID-19 case among residents or staff members. Among the states with available data, the proportion of COVID-19 cases that were fatal was 21.2% for ALF residents, 0.3% for ALF staff members, and 2.5% overall for the general population of these states. To prevent the introduction and spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, in their facilities, ALFs should 1) identify a point of contact at the local health department; 2) educate residents, families, and staff members about COVID-19; 3) have a plan for visitor and staff member restrictions; 4) encourage social (physical) distancing and the use of masks, as appropriate; 5) implement recommended infection prevention and control practices and provide access to supplies; 6) rapidly identify and properly respond to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases in residents and staff members; and 7) conduct surveillance of COVID-19 cases and deaths, facility staffing, and supply information (2).

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Among Residents and Staff Members of an Independent and Assisted Living Community for Older Adults - Seattle, Washington, 2020.

In the Seattle, Washington metropolitan area, where the first case of novel coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) in the United States was reported (1), a community-level outbreak is ongoing with evidence of rapid spread and high morbidity and mortality among older adults in long-term care skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) (2,3). However, COVID-19 morbidity among residents of senior independent and assisted living communities, in which residents do not live as closely together as do residents in SNFs and do not require skilled nursing services, has not been described. During March 5-9, 2020, two residents of a senior independent and assisted living community in Seattle (facility 1) were hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 infection; on March 6, social distancing and other preventive measures were implemented in the community. UW Medicine (the health system linked to the University of Washington), Public Health - Seattle & King County, and CDC conducted an investigation at the facility. On March 10, all residents and staff members at facility 1 were tested for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and asked to complete a questionnaire about their symptoms; all residents were tested again 7 days later. Among 142 residents and staff members tested during the initial phase, three of 80 residents (3.8%) and two of 62 staff members (3.2%) had positive test results. The three residents had no symptoms at the time of testing, although one reported an earlier cough that had resolved. A fourth resident, who had negative test results in the initial phase, had positive test results 7 days later. This resident was asymptomatic on both days. Possible explanations for so few cases of COVID-19 in this residential community compared with those in several Seattle SNFs with high morbidity and mortality include more social distancing among residents and less contact with health care providers. In addition, early implementation of stringent isolation and protective measures after identification of two COVID-19 cases might have been effective in minimizing spread of the virus in this type of setting. When investigating a potential outbreak of COVID-19 in senior independent and assisted living communities, symptom screening is unlikely to be sufficient to identify all persons infected with SARS-CoV-2. Adherence to CDC guidance to prevent COVID-19 transmission in senior independent and assisted living communities (4) could be instrumental in preventing a facility outbreak.

COVID-19 in a Long-Term Care Facility - King County, Washington, February 27-March 9, 2020.

On February 28, 2020, a case of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) was identified in a woman resident of a long-term care skilled nursing facility (facility A) in King County, Washington.* Epidemiologic investigation of facility A identified 129 cases of COVID-19 associated with facility A, including 81 of the residents, 34 staff members, and 14 visitors; 23 persons died. Limitations in effective infection control and prevention and staff members working in multiple facilities contributed to intra- and interfacility spread. COVID-19 can spread rapidly in long-term residential care facilities, and persons with chronic underlying medical conditions are at greater risk for COVID-19-associated severe disease and death. Long-term care facilities should take proactive steps to protect the health of residents and preserve the health care workforce by identifying and excluding potentially infected staff members and visitors, ensuring early recognition of potentially infected patients, and implementing appropriate infection control measures.

Asymptomatic and Presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infections in Residents of a Long-Term Care Skilled Nursing Facility - King County, Washington, March 2020.

Older adults are susceptible to severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes as a consequence of their age and, in some cases, underlying health conditions (1). A COVID-19 outbreak in a long-term care skilled nursing facility (SNF) in King County, Washington that was first identified on February 28, 2020, highlighted the potential for rapid spread among residents of these types of facilities (2). On March 1, a health care provider at a second long-term care skilled nursing facility (facility A) in King County, Washington, had a positive test result for SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19, after working while symptomatic on February 26 and 28. By March 6, seven residents of this second facility were symptomatic and had positive test results for SARS-CoV-2. On March 13, CDC performed symptom assessments and SARS-CoV-2 testing for 76 (93%) of the 82 facility A residents to evaluate the utility of symptom screening for identification of COVID-19 in SNF residents. Residents were categorized as asymptomatic or symptomatic at the time of testing, based on the absence or presence of fever, cough, shortness of breath, or other symptoms on the day of testing or during the preceding 14 days. Among 23 (30%) residents with positive test results, 10 (43%) had symptoms on the date of testing, and 13 (57%) were asymptomatic. Seven days after testing, 10 of these 13 previously asymptomatic residents had developed symptoms and were recategorized as presymptomatic at the time of testing. The reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing cycle threshold (Ct) values indicated large quantities of viral RNA in asymptomatic, presymptomatic, and symptomatic residents, suggesting the potential for transmission regardless of symptoms. Symptom-based screening in SNFs could fail to identify approximately half of residents with COVID-19. Long-term care facilities should take proactive steps to prevent introduction of SARS-CoV-2 (3). Once a confirmed case is identified in an SNF, all residents should be placed on isolation precautions if possible (3), with considerations for extended use or reuse of personal protective equipment (PPE) as needed (4).

Implementation of the Core Elements of Antibiotic Stewardship in Nursing Homes Enrolled in the National Healthcare Safety Network.

In 2016, 42% of nursing homes enrolled in the National Healthcare Safety Network reported meeting all 7 of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Core Elements of Antibiotic Stewardship. Bivariate analyses suggested that implementation of all core elements differed by ownership type and amount of infection prevention staff hours.

The SHIELD Orange County Project: Multidrug-resistant Organism Prevalence in 21 Nursing Homes and Long-term Acute Care Facilities in Southern California.

BACKGROUND: Multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) spread between hospitals, nursing homes (NHs), and long-term acute care facilities (LTACs) via patient transfers. The Shared Healthcare Intervention to Eliminate Life-threatening Dissemination of MDROs in Orange County is a regional public health collaborative involving decolonization at 38 healthcare facilities selected based on their high degree of patient sharing. We report baseline MDRO prevalence in 21 NHs/LTACs. METHODS: A random sample of 50 adults for 21 NHs/LTACs (18 NHs, 3 LTACs) were screened for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus spp. (VRE), extended-spectrum ß-lactamase-producing organisms (ESBL), and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) using nares, skin (axilla/groin), and peri-rectal swabs. Facility and resident characteristics associated with MDRO carriage were assessed using multivariable models clustering by person and facility. RESULTS: Prevalence of MDROs was 65% in NHs and 80% in LTACs. The most common MDROs in NHs were MRSA (42%) and ESBL (34%); in LTACs they were VRE (55%) and ESBL (38%). CRE prevalence was higher in facilities that manage ventilated LTAC patients and NH residents (8% vs <1%, P < .001). MDRO status was known for 18% of NH residents and 49% of LTAC patients. MDRO-colonized adults commonly harbored additional MDROs (54% MDRO+ NH residents and 62% MDRO+ LTACs patients). History of MRSA (odds ratio [OR] = 1.7; confidence interval [CI]: 1.2, 2.4; P = .004), VRE (OR = 2.1; CI: 1.2, 3.8; P = .01), ESBL (OR = 1.6; CI: 1.1, 2.3; P = .03), and diabetes (OR = 1.3; CI: 1.0, 1.7; P = .03) were associated with any MDRO carriage. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of NH residents and LTAC patients harbor MDROs. MDRO status is frequently unknown to the facility. The high MDRO prevalence highlights the need for prevention efforts in NHs/LTACs as part of regional efforts to control MDRO spread.

Severe Respiratory Illness Associated with Human Metapneumovirus in Nursing Home, New Mexico, USA.

Human metapneumovirus is an emerging pathogen that causes upper and lower respiratory illness. Nursing home outbreaks of infection with this virus can cause severe illness and lead to poor patient outcomes. We report an outbreak investigation in a nursing home during 2018 and infection control guidelines to assist in disease control.

Environmental Panels as a Proxy for Nursing Facility Patients With Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus Colonization.

Background: Most nursing facilities (NFs) lack methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) surveillance programs due to limited resources and high costs. We investigated the utility of environmental screening of high-touch surfaces in patient rooms as a way to circumvent these challenges. Methods: We compared MRSA and VRE culture data from high-touch surfaces in patients' rooms (14450 samples from 6 NFs) and ranked each site's performance in predicting patient colonization (7413 samples). The best-performing sites were included in a MRSA- and a VRE-specific panel that functioned as a proxy for patient colonization. Molecular typing was performed to confirm available concordant patient-environment pairs. Results: We identified and validated a MRSA panel that consisted of the bed controls, nurse call button, bed rail, and TV remote control. The VRE panel included the toilet seat, bed controls, bed rail, TV remote control, and top of the side table. Panel colonization data tracked patient colonization. Negative predictive values were 89%-92% for MRSA and 82%-84% for VRE. Molecular typing confirmed a strong clonal type relationship in available concordant patient-environment pairs (98% for MRSA, 91% for VRE), pointing to common epidemiological patterns for environmental and patient isolates. Conclusions: Environmental panels used as a proxy for patient colonization and incorporated into facility surveillance protocols can guide decolonization strategies, improve awareness of MRSA and VRE burden, and inform efforts to reduce transmission. Targeted environmental screening may be a viable surveillance strategy for MRSA and VRE detection in NFs.