Environmental Contamination of Contact Precaution and Non-Contact Precaution Patient Rooms in Six Acute Care Facilities.

BACKGROUND: Environmental contamination is an important source of hospital multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) transmission. Factors such as patient MDRO contact precautions (CP) status, patient proximity to surfaces, and unit type likely influence MDRO contamination and bacterial bioburden levels on patient room surfaces. Identifying factors associated with environmental contamination in patient rooms and on shared unit surfaces could help identify important environmental MDRO transmission routes. METHODS: Surfaces were sampled from MDRO CP and non-CP rooms, nursing stations, and mobile equipment in acute care, intensive care, and transplant units within 6 acute care hospitals using a convenience sampling approach blinded to cleaning events. Precaution rooms had patients with clinical or surveillance tests positive for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, vancomycin-resistant enterococci, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae or Acinetobacter within the previous 6 months, or Clostridioides difficile toxin within the past 30 days. Rooms not meeting this definition were considered non-CP rooms. Samples were cultured for the above MDROs and total bioburden. RESULTS: Overall, an estimated 13% of rooms were contaminated with at least 1 MDRO. MDROs were detected more frequently in CP rooms (32% of 209 room-sample events) than non-CP rooms (12% of 234 room-sample events). Surface bioburden did not differ significantly between CP and non-CP rooms or MDRO-positive and MDRO-negative rooms. CONCLUSIONS: CP room surfaces are contaminated more frequently than non-CP room surfaces; however, contamination of non-CP room surfaces is not uncommon and may be an important reservoir for ongoing MDRO transmission. MDRO contamination of non-CP rooms may indicate asymptomatic patient MDRO carriage, inadequate terminal cleaning, or cross-contamination of room surfaces via healthcare personnel hands.

Evaluation of a Redesigned Personal Protective Equipment Gown.

BACKGROUND: In healthcare, the goal of personal protective equipment (PPE) is to protect healthcare personnel (HCP) and patients from body fluids and infectious organisms via contact, droplet, or airborne transmission. The critical importance of using PPE properly is highlighted by 2 potentially fatal viral infections, severe acute respiratory syndrome-associated coronavirus and Ebola virus, where HCP became infected while caring for patients due to errors in the use of PPE. However, PPE in dealing with less dangerous, but highly infectious organisms is important as well. This work proposes a framework to test and evaluate PPE with a focus on gown design. METHODS: An observational study identified issues with potential for contamination related to gown use. After redesigning the existing gown, a high-fidelity patient simulator study with 40 HCP as participants evaluated the gown redesign using 2 commonly performed tasks. Variables of interest were nonadherence to procedural standards, use problems with the gown during task performance, and usability and cognitive task load ratings of the standard and redesigned gowns. RESULTS: While no differences were found in terms of nonadherence and use problems between the current and the redesigned gown, differences in usability and task load ratings suggested that the redesigned gown is perceived more favorably by HCP. CONCLUSIONS: This work proposes a framework to guide the evaluation of PPE. The results suggest that the current design of the PPE gown can be improved in usability and user satisfaction. Although our data did not find an increase in adherence to protocol when using the redesigned gown, it is likely that higher usability and lower task load could result in higher adherence over longer periods of use.

Factors associated with testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 and evaluation of a recruitment protocol among healthcare personnel in a COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness study.

Objective: The objective of this study was to determine factors associated with testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 among healthcare personnel. Secondary objectives were to assess representativeness of recruited participants and the effectiveness of a multiple-contact protocol for recruiting healthcare personnel in this COVID-19 study. Design: Survey study, conducted as part of an observational test-negative study of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness. Setting: University of Utah Health system, including both inpatient and outpatient facilities. Participants: Clinical and non-clinical healthcare personnel at University of Utah Health. 1456 were contacted and 503 (34.5%) completed the survey. Cases were all eligible employees testing positive for COVID-19, with 3:1 randomly selected, matched controls (test negative) selected weekly. Methods: Online survey. Results: Significant differences in the demographics of participants and the source population were observed; e.g., nursing staff comprised 31.6% of participants but only 23.3% of the source population. The multiple-contact recruitment protocol increased participation by ten percentage points and ensured equal representation of controls. Potential exposure to illness outside of work was strongly predictive of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 (OR = 3.74; 95% CI: 2.29, 6.11) whereas potential exposure at work was protective against testing positive (OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.29, 0.88). Conclusions: Carefully designed recruitment protocols increase participation and representation of controls, but bias in participant demographics still exists. The negative association between potential workplace exposure and positive test suggests testing bias in the test-negative design. Healthcare personnel's potential exposures to COVID-19 outside of the workplace are important predictors of SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity.

Assessing Pathogen Transmission Opportunities: Variation in Nursing Home Staff-Resident Interactions.

OBJECTIVES: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends implementing Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) for all nursing home (NH) residents known to be colonized with targeted multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs), wounds, or medical devices. Differences in health care personnel (HCP) and resident interactions between units may affect risk of acquiring and transmitting MDROs, affecting EBP implementation. We studied HCP-resident interactions across a variety of NHs to characterize MDRO transmission opportunities. DESIGN: 2 cross-sectional visits. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Four CDC Epicenter sites and CDC Emerging Infection Program sites in 7 states recruited NHs with a mix of unit care types (≥30 beds or ≥2 units). HCP were observed providing resident care. METHODS: Room-based observations and HCP interviews assessed HCP-resident interactions, care type provided, and equipment use. Observations and interviews were conducted for 7-8 hours in 3-6-month intervals per unit. Chart reviews collected deidentified resident demographics and MDRO risk factors (eg, indwelling devices, pressure injuries, and antibiotic use). RESULTS: We recruited 25 NHs (49 units) with no loss to follow-up, conducted 2540 room-based observations (total duration: 405 hours), and 924 HCP interviews. HCP averaged 2.5 interactions per resident per hour (long-term care units) to 3.4 per resident per hour (ventilator care units). Nurses provided care to more residents (n = 12) than certified nursing assistants (CNAs) and respiratory therapists (RTs) (CNA: 9.8 and RT: 9) but nurses performed significantly fewer task types per interaction compared to CNAs (incidence rate ratio (IRR): 0.61, P < .05). Short-stay (IRR: 0.89) and ventilator-capable (IRR: 0.94) units had less varied care compared with long-term care units (P < .05), although HCP visited residents in these units at similar rates. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Resident-HCP interaction rates are similar across NH unit types, differing primarily in types of care provided. Current and future interventions such as EBP, care bundling, or targeted infection prevention education should consider unit-specific HCP-resident interaction patterns.

Effectiveness of a multisite personal protective equipment (PPE)-free zone intervention in acute care.

OBJECTIVE: Determine the effectiveness of a personal protective equipment (PPE)-free zone intervention on healthcare personnel (HCP) entry hand hygiene (HH) and PPE donning compliance in rooms of patients in contact precautions. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental, multicenter intervention, before-and-after study with concurrent controls. SETTING: All patient rooms on contact precautions on 16 units (5 medical-surgical, 6 intensive care, 5 specialty care units) at 3 acute-care facilities (2 academic medical centers, 1 Veterans Affairs hospital). Observations of PPE donning and entry HH compliance by HCP were conducted during both study phases. Surveys of HCP perceptions of the PPE-free zone were distributed in both study phases. INTERVENTION: A PPE-free zone, where a low-risk area inside door thresholds of contact precautions rooms was demarcated by red tape on the floor. Inside this area, HCP were not required to wear PPE. RESULTS: We observed 3,970 room entries. HH compliance did not change between study phases among intervention units (relative risk [RR], 0.92; P = .29) and declined in control units (RR, 0.70; P = .005); however, the PPE-free zone did not significantly affect compliance (P = .07). The PPE-free zone effect on HH was significant only for rooms on enteric precautions (P = .008). PPE use was not significantly different before versus after the intervention (P = .15). HCP perceived the zone positively; 65% agreed that it facilitated communication and 66.8% agreed that it permitted checking on patients more frequently. CONCLUSIONS: HCP viewed the PPE-free zone favorably and it did not adversely affect PPE or HH compliance. Future infection prevention interventions should consider the complex sociotechnical system factors influencing behavior change.