A narrative review of how infection preventionist (IP) staffing and outcome metrics are assessed by health care organizations and factors to consider.

BACKGROUND: Infection Preventionist to date are experiencing staffing shortages, the purpose of this narrative review is to understand how heath care organizations track staffing and outcome metrics in relation to Infection Preventionists. METHODS: Databases utilized included MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. RESULTS: The initial search included 668 studies. After excluding duplicates, the title and abstract review yielded 50 articles. After screening full texts, 37 studies met the inclusion criteria. Significant variability exists within infection prevention staffing metrics. Common metrics to account for IP staffing levels include the ratio of IPs per facility and IPs per inpatient bed. Frequently tracked outcomes in relation to infection preventionists include Catheter-associated urinary tract infections and central line bloodstream infection incidence rates and standardized infection ratios, as well as Clostridioides difficile incidence rates. Metrics and outcomes from included studies are available in our supporting tables. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the need for a new IP staffing model that focuses on a granular assessment of each program and care setting. Additional studies can then be conducted to examine how ideal staffing impacts outcome metrics.

Using a Comprehensive On-Site Assessment Process to Reduce Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infection Rates.

Central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) rates increased substantially in the United States following the emergence of COVID-19 and subsequent surges. The pandemic resulted in hospital capacities being exceeded and crisis standards of care being implemented for sustained periods. As COVID-19 rates in the United States began to stabilize, some facilities did not return to previous CLABSI rates, indicating a change in practices that had a longer-term impact on CLABSI prevention. The authors' large health care system observed similar increases in CLABSI following the emergence of COVID-19, prompting investigation and intervention in the form of a quality improvement project. To identify changes related to ongoing increases in CLABSI, an assessment team conducted standardized on-site assessments at 11 facilities. Site assessments were considered an intervention, as they involved rigorous preassessment investigations and interviews, case reviews, practice observations, on-site staff interviews, and postassessment support for additional interventions. Nine facilities had enough postassessment data to analyze the impact of intervention. The overall CLABSI rate (infections per 1000 line days) at the 9 facilities in the 6 months prior to intervention was 1.42, and the postassessment rate in the 6 months following intervention was 0.44. This indicates the effectiveness of facility-specific investigation followed by targeted performance improvements to reduce the rate of CLABSI.

Novel manufacturing of simple masks in response to international shortages: Bacterial and particulate filtration efficiency testing.

Many healthcare systems have been forced to outsource simple mask production due to international shortages caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Providence created simple masks using surgical wrap and submitted samples to an environmental lab for bacterial filtration efficiency testing. Bacterial filtration efficiency rates ranged from 83.0% to 98.1% depending on specific material and ply, and particular filtration efficiency rates ranged from 92.3% to 97.7%. Based on mask configuration, specific surgical wrap selected, and ply, the recommended filtration efficiency for isolation and surgical masks of 95% and 98%, respectively can be achieved. These alternative masks can allow for similar coverage and safety when hospital-grade isolation masks are in short supply.

A randomized trial of single versus double high-level disinfection of duodenoscopes and linear echoendoscopes using standard automated reprocessing.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In a pilot study, we demonstrated that current guidelines for duodenoscope and linear echoendoscope (DLE) reprocessing using a single cycle of high-level disinfection (HLD) in an automated reprocessor may be inadequate. In August 2015, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration offered double HLD as a possible response to address this concern. As a result, Providence Health and Services adopted double HLD as standard procedure for DLEs, but no rigorous clinical studies supported this practice. We undertook a quality improvement study to compare single HLD versus double HLD at 4 of our 34 hospitals. METHODS: HLD of DLE was randomized, separately in each facility, to either single HLD or double HLD on weekdays, with standard double HLD on weekends or holidays. There was 99.7% compliance with the randomization scheme. Daily qualitative surveillance cultures of dried, post-HLD DLEs were collected for 6 months (1 swab sample from the elevator mechanism and 1 combined brush sample from the suction and working channels for each encounter), and each sample was incubated for 48 hours. Positivity rates of any microbial growth and growth of high-concern pathogens (potentially pathogenic enteric flora) were compared between the 2 study arms. RESULTS: Altogether, 5850 surveillance culture specimens were obtained during 2925 encounters from the 45 DLEs in clinical use in the participating hospitals. Of these, 3052 (52.2%) were from endoscopes cleaned by double HLD. Double HLD demonstrated no benefit over single HLD because similar positivity rates were observed (all P > .05). The elevator mechanism was more frequently colonized than the biopsy channel (5.2% vs 2.9%, P < .001). Among the 224 encounters with positive growth, 140 (62.5%) recovered microbes from only the elevator mechanism specimens, 73 (32.6%) recovered microbes from only the channel specimens, and 11 (4.9%) recovered microbes from both types of specimens. Double HLD failed to improve contamination rates for either sample site at any of the 4 endoscopy facilities, although there were significant overall differences in contamination rates among the facilities (P < .001), as observed in our previous study. Only 8 high-concern pathogens were recovered from 5 DLEs, all from the elevator mechanism. Persistent growth was observed on 2 duodenoscopes. One grew Enterococcus spp (not vancomycin-resistant enterococci) on 3 occasions, and Escherichia coli was present on 2 of these occasions, 1 of which was a multidrug-resistant organism. The other grew different enteric flora on 2 specimens. CONCLUSIONS: Our prospectively randomized study, involving 4 separate endoscopy facilities and standard automated endoscope reprocessing, showed that double HLD did not reduce culture positivity rates compared with single HLD in facilities with an already low positive culture rate. Alternative risk mitigation strategies will be assessed in an ongoing effort to reduce endoscope contamination.

A systematic approach to quantifying infection prevention staffing and coverage needs.

BACKGROUND: This article describes a large nonprofit health care system's approach at quantifying the actual number of infection preventionist (IP) and relative support staff required to build and sustain effective infection prevention programs. METHODS: A list of all physical locations within the organization requiring infection prevention coverage were identified via survey, including department-level detail for 34 hospitals, 583 ambulatory sites, and 26 in-home and long-term care programs across 5 states. Required IP activities for each physical location were also tallied by task. Type of activity, frequency (times per year), hours per activity, and total number of locations in which each activity should occur were determined. From this, the number of hours per week of infection prevention labor resources needed was calculated. RESULTS: Quantitative needs assessment revealed actual labor need to be 31%-66% above current benchmarks of 0.5-1.0 IP per 100 occupied beds. When aggregated across the organization, the comprehensive review results yielded a new benchmark of 1.0 infection prevention full-time equivalent per 69 beds if ambulatory, long-term care, or home care are included. CONCLUSIONS: Size, scope, services offered, populations cared for, and type of care settings all impact the actual need for IP coverage, making the survey benchmarks available in the literature invalid. A comprehensive assessment of health care organization composition and structure is necessary prior to determining the IP staffing needs for that organization.

Surveillance of guideline practices for duodenoscope and linear echoendoscope reprocessing in a large healthcare system.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To assess the adequacy of currently recommended duodenoscope and linear echoendoscope (DLE) automatic endoscope reprocessing (AER) and high-level disinfection (HLD), we collected daily post-reprocessing surveillance cultures of 106 DLEs in 21 Providence and Affiliate Hospitals. METHODS: Daily qualitative surveillance of dried, post-HLD DLEs was conducted for a minimum of 30 days at each facility. Positivity rates for any microbial growth and growth of high-concern pathogens were reported. Potential effects of DLE manufacturer, age, and AER processor on culture-positivity rate were assessed. RESULTS: Microbial growth was recovered from 201 of 4032 specimens (5%) or 189 of 2238 encounters (8.4%), including 23 specimens (.6%) or 21 encounters (.9%) for a high-concern pathogen. Wide variations in culture-positivity rate were observed across facilities. No striking difference in culture-positivity rate was seen among 8 DLE models, 3 DLE manufacturers, DLE age, manual or bedside cleanser, or automatic flushing system use. However, there was suggestive evidence that Custom Ultrasonics AER (Warminster, Pa, USA) had a lower culture-positivity rate than Medivators AER (Cantel Medical Corp., Little Falls, NJ, USA) for high-concern pathogen growth (0/1079 vs 21/2735 specimens or 0/547 vs 20/1582 encounters). Two endoscopes grew intestinal flora on several occasions despite multiple HLD. No multidrug-resistant organism was detected. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter DLE surveillance study, microbial growth was recovered in 5.0% of specimens (8.4% of encounters), with most being environmental microbes. Enteric bacterial flora was recovered in .6% of specimens (.9% of encounters), despite compliance with 2014 U.S. guidelines and manufacturers' recommendations for cleaning and HLD process. The observed better performance of Custom Ultrasonics AER deserves further investigation.