The effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines in the prevention of post-COVID conditions in children and adolescents: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

Objective: We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination against post-COVID conditions (long COVID) in the pediatric population. Design: Systematic literature review/meta-analysis. Methods: We searched PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Web of Science from December 1, 2019, to August 14, 2023, for studies evaluating the COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against post-COVID conditions among vaccinated individuals < 21 years old who received at least 1 dose of COVID-19 vaccine. A post-COVID condition was defined as any symptom that was present 4 or more weeks after COVID-19 infection. We calculated the pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) (95% CI) for post-COVID conditions between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. Results: Eight studies with 23,995 individuals evaluated the effect of vaccination on post-COVID conditions, of which 5 observational studies were included in the meta-analysis. The prevalence of children who did not receive COVID-19 vaccines ranged from 65% to 97%. The pooled prevalence of post-COVID conditions was 21.3% among those unvaccinated and 20.3% among those vaccinated at least once. The pooled DOR for post-COVID conditions among individuals vaccinated with at least 1 dose and those vaccinated with 2 doses were 1.07 (95% CI, 0.77-1.49) and 0.82 (95% CI, 0.63-1.08), respectively. Conclusions: A significant proportion of children and adolescents were unvaccinated, and the prevalence of post-COVID conditions was higher than reported in adults. While vaccination did not appear protective, conclusions were limited by the lack of randomized trials and selection bias inherent in observational studies.

The effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccine in the prevention of post-COVID conditions: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of the latest research.

Objective: We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination against post-COVID conditions (long COVID) among fully vaccinated individuals. Design: Systematic literature review/meta-analysis. Methods: We searched PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Web of Science from December 1, 2019, to June 2, 2023, for studies evaluating the COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) against post-COVID conditions among fully vaccinated individuals who received two doses of COVID-19 vaccine. A post-COVID condition was defined as any symptom that was present four or more weeks after COVID-19 infection. We calculated the pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) (95% confidence interval) for post-COVID conditions between fully vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% x (1-DOR). Results: Thirty-two studies with 775,931 individuals evaluated the effect of vaccination on post-COVID conditions, of which, twenty-four studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled DOR for post-COVID conditions among fully vaccinated individuals was 0.680 (95% CI: 0.523-0.885) with an estimated VE of 32.0% (11.5%-47.7%). Vaccine effectiveness was 36.9% (23.1%-48.2%) among those who received two doses of COVID-19 vaccine before COVID-19 infection and 68.7% (64.7%-72.2%) among those who received three doses before COVID-19 infection. The stratified analysis demonstrated no protection against post-COVID conditions among those who received COVID-19 vaccination after COVID-19 infection. Conclusions: Receiving a complete COVID-19 vaccination prior to contracting the virus resulted in a significant reduction in post-COVID conditions throughout the study period, including during the Omicron era. Vaccine effectiveness demonstrated an increase when supplementary doses were administered.

Longer-term effectiveness of a heterologous coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine booster in healthcare workers in Brazil.

Objective: To compare the long-term vaccine effectiveness between those receiving viral vector [Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1)] or inactivated viral (CoronaVac) primary series (2 doses) and those who received an mRNA booster (Pfizer/BioNTech) (the third dose) among healthcare workers (HCWs). Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among HCWs (aged ≥18 years) in Brazil from January 2021 to July 2022. To assess the variation in the effectiveness of booster dose over time, we estimated the effectiveness rate by taking the log risk ratio as a function of time. Results: Of 14,532 HCWs, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was confirmed in 56.3% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of CoronaVac vaccine versus 23.2% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of CoronaVac vaccine with mRNA booster (P < .001), and 37.1% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine versus 22.7% among HCWs receiving 2 doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine with mRNA booster (P < .001). The highest vaccine effectiveness with mRNA booster was observed 30 days after vaccination: 91% for the CoronaVac vaccine group and 97% for the ChAdOx1 vaccine group. Vacine effectiveness declined to 55% and 67%, respectively, at 180 days. Of 430 samples screened for mutations, 49.5% were SARS-CoV-2 delta variants and 34.2% were SARS-CoV-2 omicron variants. Conclusions: Heterologous COVID-19 vaccines were effective for up to 180 days in preventing COVID-19 in the SARS-CoV-2 delta and omicron variant eras, which suggests the need for a second booster.

Risk factors for long coronavirus disease 2019 (long COVID) among healthcare personnel, Brazil, 2020-2022.

OBJECTIVE: To determine risk factors for the development of long coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in healthcare personnel (HCP). METHODS: We conducted a case-control study among HCP who had confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 working in a Brazilian healthcare system between March 1, 2020, and July 15, 2022. Cases were defined as those having long COVID according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definition. Controls were defined as HCP who had documented COVID-19 but did not develop long COVID. Multiple logistic regression was used to assess the association between exposure variables and long COVID during 180 days of follow-up. RESULTS: Of 7,051 HCP diagnosed with COVID-19, 1,933 (27.4%) who developed long COVID were compared to 5,118 (72.6%) who did not. The majority of those with long COVID (51.8%) had 3 or more symptoms. Factors associated with the development of long COVID were female sex (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.05-1.39), age (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.02), and 2 or more SARS-CoV-2 infections (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.50). Those infected with the SARS-CoV-2 δ (delta) variant (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.17-0.50) or the SARS-CoV-2 o (omicron) variant (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30-0.78), and those receiving 4 COVID-19 vaccine doses prior to infection (OR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.01-0.19) were significantly less likely to develop long COVID. CONCLUSIONS: Long COVID can be prevalent among HCP. Acquiring >1 SARS-CoV-2 infection was a major risk factor for long COVID, while maintenance of immunity via vaccination was highly protective.

Effectiveness of two coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines (viral vector and inactivated viral vaccine) against severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in a cohort of healthcare workers.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated real-world vaccine effectiveness for Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) and CoronaVac against laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among healthcare workers (HCWs). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among HCWs (aged ≥18 years) working in a private healthcare system in Brazil between January 1, 2021 and August 3, 2021, to assess vaccine effectiveness. We calculated vaccine effectiveness as 1 - rate ratio (RR), with RR determined by adjusting Poisson models with the occurrence of SARS-CoV-2 infection as the outcome and the vaccination status as the main variable. We used the logarithmic link function and simple models adjusting for sex, age, and job types. RESULTS: In total, 13,813 HCWs met the inclusion criteria for this analysis. Among them, 6,385 (46.2%) received the CoronaVac vaccine, 5,916 (42.8%) received the ChAdOx1 vaccine, and 1,512 (11.0%) were not vaccinated. Overall, COVID-19 occurred in 6% of unvaccinated HCWs, 3% of HCWs who received 2 doses of CoronaVac vaccine, and 0.7% of HCWs who received 2 doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine (P < .001). In the adjusted analyses, the estimated vaccine effectiveness rates were 51.3% for CoronaVac, and 88.1% for ChAdOx1 vaccine. Both vaccines reduced the number of hospitalizations, the length of hospital stay, and the need for mechanical ventilation. In addition, 19 SARS-CoV-2 samples from 19 HCWs were screened for mutations of interest. Of 19 samples, 18 were the γ (gamma) variant. CONCLUSIONS: Although both COVID-19 vaccines (viral vector and inactivated virus) can significantly prevent COVID-19 among HCWs, CoronaVac was much less effective. The COVID-19 vaccines were also effective against the dominant γ variant.

Effectiveness of Heterologous Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccine Booster Dosing in Brazilian Healthcare Workers, 2021.

BACKGROUND: Little is currently known about vaccine effectiveness (VE) for either 2 doses of Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) viral vector vaccine or CoronaVac (Instituto Butantan) inactivated viral vaccine followed by a third dose of mRNA vaccine (Pfizer/BioNTech) among healthcare workers (HCWs). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among HCWs (aged ≥18 years) working in a private healthcare system in Brazil from January to December 2021. VE was defined as 1 - incidence rate ratio (IRR), with IRR determined using Poisson models with the occurrence of laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection as the outcome, adjusting for age, sex, and job type. We compared those receiving viral vector or inactivated viral primary series (2 doses) with those who received an mRNA booster. RESULTS: A total of 11 427 HCWs met the inclusion criteria. COVID-19 was confirmed in 31.5% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of CoronaVac vaccine versus 0.9% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of CoronaVac vaccine with mRNA booster (P < .001) and 9.8% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine versus 1% among HCWs receiving 2 doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine with mRNA booster (P < .001). In the adjusted analyses, the estimated VE was 92.0% for 2 CoronaVac vaccines plus mRNA booster and 60.2% for 2 ChAdOx1 vaccines plus mRNA booster, when compared with those with no mRNA booster. Of 246 samples screened for mutations, 191 (77.6%) were Delta variants. CONCLUSIONS: While 2 doses of ChAdOx1 or CoronaVac vaccines prevent COVID-19, the addition of a Pfizer/BioNTech booster provided significantly more protection.

Prevalence, predictors, and patient-reported outcomes of long COVID in hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients from the city of São Paulo, Brazil.

Background: Robust data comparing long COVID in hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients in middle-income countries are limited. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in Brazil, including hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients. Long COVID was diagnosed at 90-day follow-up using WHO criteria. Demographic and clinical information, including the depression screening scale (PHQ-2) at day 30, was compared between the groups. If the PHQ-2 score is 3 or greater, major depressive disorder is likely. Logistic regression analysis identified predictors and protective factors for long COVID. Results: A total of 291 hospitalized and 1,118 non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were included. The prevalence of long COVID was 47.1% and 49.5%, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression showed female sex (odds ratio [OR] = 4.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.51-8.37), hypertension (OR = 2.90, 95% CI 1.52-5.69), PHQ-2 > 3 (OR = 6.50, 95% CI 1.68-33.4) and corticosteroid use during hospital stay (OR = 2.43, 95% CI 1.20-5.04) as predictors of long COVID in hospitalized patients, while female sex (OR = 2.52, 95% CI 1.95-3.27) and PHQ-2 > 3 (OR = 3.88, 95% CI 2.52-6.16) were predictors in non-hospitalized patients. Conclusion: Long COVID was prevalent in both groups. Positive depression screening at day 30 post-infection can predict long COVID. Early screening of depression helps health staff to identify patients at a higher risk of long COVID, allowing an early diagnosis of the condition.

Comparing human to electronic observers to monitor hand hygiene compliance in an intensive care unit.

Objective: We sought to determine whether an electronic hand hygiene (HH) system could monitor HH compliance at similar rates to direct human observation. Methods: This 4-year proof-of-concept study was conducted in an intensive care unit (ICU) of a private tertiary-care hospital in São Paulo, Brazil, where electronic HH systems were installed in 2 rooms. HH compliance was reported respectively using direct observation and electronic counter devices with an infrared system for detecting HH opportunities. Results: In phase 1, HH compliance by human observers was 56.3% (564 of 1,001 opportunities), while HH compliance detected by the electronic observer was 51.0% (515 of 1,010 opportunities). In phase 2, human observers registered 484 HH opportunities with a HH compliance rate of 64.7% (313 of 484) versus 70.6% (346 of 490) simultaneously detected by the electronic system. In addition, an enhanced HH electronic system monitored activity 24 hours per day and HH compliance without the presence of a human observer was 40.3% (10,642 of 26,421 opportunities), providing evidence for the Hawthorne effect. Conclusions: The electronic HH monitoring system had good correlation with human HH observation, but compliance was remarkably lower when human observers were not present due to the Hawthorne effect (25%-30% absolute difference). Electronic monitoring systems can replace direct observation and can markedly reduce the Hawthorne effect.

Comparison of two electronic hand hygiene systems using real-time feedback via wireless technology to improve hand hygiene compliance in an intensive care unit.

Background: Most hand hygiene (HH) intervention studies use a quasi-experimental design, are primarily uncontrolled before-and-after studies, or are controlled before-and-after studies with a nonequivalent control group. Well-funded studies with improved designs and HH interventions are needed. Objectives: To evaluate healthcare worker (HCW) HH compliance with alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) through direct observation (human observer), 2 electronic technologies, a radio frequency identification (RFID) badge system, and an invasive device sensor. Methods: In our controlled experimental study, 2,269 observations were made over a 6-month period from July 1 to December 30, 2020, in a 4-bed intensive care unit. We compared HH compliance between a basic feedback loop system with RFID badges and an enhanced feedback loop system that utilized sensors on invasive devices. Results: Real-time feedback by wireless technology connected to a patient's invasive device (enhanced feedback loop) resulted in a significant increase in HH compliance (69.5% in the enhanced group vs 59.1% in the basic group; P = .0001). Conclusion: An enhanced feedback loop system connected to invasive devices, providing real-time alerts to HCWs, is effective in improving HH compliance.

The effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine in the prevention of post-COVID-19 conditions: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

Background: Although multiple studies have revealed that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines can reduce COVID-19-related outcomes, little is known about their impact on post-COVID-19 conditions. We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination against post-COVID-19 conditions (ie, long COVID). Methods: We searched PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Web of Science from December 1, 2019, to April 27, 2022, for studies evaluating COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against post-COVID-19 conditions among individuals who received at least 1 dose of Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, AstraZeneca, or Janssen vaccine. A post-COVID-19 condition was defined as any symptom that was present 3 or more weeks after having COVID-19. Editorials, commentaries, reviews, study protocols, and studies in the pediatric population were excluded. We calculated the pooled diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) for post-COVID-19 conditions between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% × (1 - DOR). Results: In total, 10 studies with 1,600,830 individuals evaluated the effect of vaccination on post-COVID-19 conditions, of which 6 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled DOR for post-COVID-19 conditions among individuals vaccinated with at least 1 dose was 0.708 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.692-0.725) with an estimated vaccine effectiveness of 29.2% (95% CI, 27.5%-30.8%). The vaccine effectiveness was 35.3% (95% CI, 32.3%-38.1%) among those who received the COVID-19 vaccine before having COVID-19, and 27.4% (95% CI, 25.4%-29.3%) among those who received it after having COVID-19. Conclusions: COVID-19 vaccination both before and after having COVID-19 significantly decreased post-COVID-19 conditions for the circulating variants during the study period although vaccine effectiveness was low.

The long-term effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

Background: Although multiple studies revealed high vaccine effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines within 3 months after the completion of vaccines, long-term vaccine effectiveness has not been well established, especially after the δ (delta) variant became prominent. We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of long-term vaccine effectiveness. Methods: We searched PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Web of Science from December 2019 to November 15, 2021, for studies evaluating the long-term vaccine effectiveness against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 or COVID-19 hospitalization among individuals who received 2 doses of Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, or AstraZeneca vaccines, or 1 dose of the Janssen vaccine. Long-term was defined as >5 months after the last dose. We calculated the pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) with 95% confidence interval for COVID-19 between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% × (1 - DOR). Results: In total, 16 studies including 17,939,172 individuals evaluated long-term vaccine effectiveness and were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled DOR for COVID-19 was 0.158 (95% CI: 0.157-0.160) with an estimated vaccine effectiveness of 84.2% (95% CI, 84.0- 84.3%). Estimated vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 hospitalization was 88.7% (95% CI, 55.8%-97.1%). Vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 during the δ variant period was 61.2% (95% CI, 59.0%-63.3%). Conclusions: COVID-19 vaccines are effective in preventing COVID-19 and COVID-19 hospitalization across a long-term period for the circulating variants during the study period. More observational studies are needed to evaluate the vaccine effectiveness of third dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, the vaccine effectiveness of mixing COVID-19 vaccines, COVID-19 breakthrough infection, and vaccine effectiveness against newly emerging variants.

Hand hygiene performance in an intensive care unit before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The current COVID-19 pandemic has heightened the focus on infection prevention in hospitals. We evaluated hand hygiene compliance with alcohol-based hand rub via electronic observation among healthcare workers in an intensive care unit from 2017 to 2020. The COVID-19 pandemic was not associated with an increase in hand hygiene compliance.

Short-term effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised patients: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the short-term effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines among immunocompromised patients to prevent laboratory-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 infection. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis. We calculated the pooled diagnostic odds ratio [DOR] (95% CI) for COVID-19 infection between immunocompromised patients and healthy people or those with stable chronic medical conditions. VE was estimated as 100% x (1-DOR). We also investigated the rates of developing anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein IgG between the 2 groups. RESULTS: Twenty studies evaluating COVID-19 vaccine response, and four studies evaluating VE were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled DOR for symptomatic COVID-19 infection in immunocompromised patients was 0.296 (95% CI: 0.108-0.811) with an estimated VE of 70.4% (95% CI: 18.9%- 89.2%). When stratified by diagnosis, IgG antibody levels were much higher in the control group compared to immunocompromised patients with solid organ transplant (pOR 232.3; 95% Cl: 66.98-806.03), malignant diseases (pOR 42.0, 95% Cl: 11.68-151.03), and inflammatory rheumatic diseases (pOR 19.06; 95% Cl: 5.00-72.62). CONCLUSIONS: We found COVID-19 mRNA vaccines were effective against symptomatic COVID-19 among the immunocompromised patients but had lower VE compared to the controls. Further research is needed to understand the discordance between antibody production and protection against symptomatic COVID-19 infection.

Impact of COVID-19 on an infection prevention and control program, Iowa 2020-2021.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has affected infection prevention and control (IPC) programs worldwide. We evaluated the impact of COVID-19 on the University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics IPC program by measuring the volume of calls to the program, changes in healthcare-associated infection rates, and team member perceptions. METHODS: We retrieved the IPC call log and healthcare-associated infection trends for 2018-2020. We defined 2 periods: pre-COVID-19 (2018-2019) and COVID-19 (January-December 2020). We also conducted one-on-one interviews and focus group interviews with members of the IPC program and describe changes in their working conditions during the COVID-19 period. RESULTS: A total of 6,564 calls were recorded during 2018-2020. The pre-COVID-19 period had a median of 71 calls and/or month (range: 50-119). During the COVID-19 period, the median call volume increased to 368/month (range: 149-829), and most calls were related to isolation precautions (50%). During the COVID-19 period, the central line-associated bloodstream infection incidence increased significantly. Infection preventionists reported that the ambiguity and conflicting guidance during the pandemic were major challenges. CONCLUSIONS: Our IPC program experienced a 500% increase in consultation requests. Planning for future bio-emergencies should include creative strategies to increase response capacity within IPC programs.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) admission screening and assessment of infectiousness at an academic medical center in Iowa, 2020.

OBJECTIVE: Patients admitted to the hospital may unknowingly carry severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and hospitals have implemented SARS-CoV-2 admission screening. However, because SARS-CoV-2 reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays may remain positive for months after infection, positive results may represent active or past infection. We determined the prevalence and infectiousness of patients who were admitted for reasons unrelated to COVID-19 but tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 on admission screening. METHODS: We conducted an observational study at the University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics from July 7 to October 25, 2020. All patients admitted without suspicion of COVID-19 were included, and medical records of those with a positive admission screening test were reviewed. Infectiousness was determined using patient history, PCR cycle threshold (Ct) value, and serology. RESULTS: In total, 5,913 patients were screened and admitted for reasons unrelated to COVID-19. Of these, 101 had positive admission RT-PCR results; 36 of these patients were excluded because they had respiratory signs/symptoms on admission on chart review. Also, 65 patients (1.1%) did not have respiratory symptoms. Finally, 55 patients had Ct values available and were included in this analysis. The median age of the final cohort was 56 years and 51% were male. Our assessment revealed that 23 patients (42%) were likely infectious. The median duration of in-hospital isolation was 5 days for those likely infectious and 2 days for those deemed noninfectious. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 was infrequent among patients admitted for reasons unrelated to COVID-19. An assessment of the likelihood of infectiousness using clinical history, RT-PCR Ct values, and serology may help in making the determination to discontinue isolation and conserve resources.

Positive deviance in infection prevention and control: A systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) remain a major challenge. Various strategies have been tried to prevent or control HAIs. Positive deviance, a strategy that has been used in the last decade, is based on the observation that a few at-risk individuals follow uncommon, useful practices and that, consequently, they experience better outcomes than their peers who share similar risks. We performed a systematic literature review to measure the impact of positive deviance in controlling HAIs. METHODS: A systematic search strategy was used to search PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and Embase through May 2020 for studies evaluating positive deviance as a single intervention or as part of an initiative to prevent or control healthcare-associated infections. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Downs and Black score. RESULTS: Of 542 articles potentially eligible for review, 14 articles were included for further analysis. All studies were observational, quasi-experimental (before-and-after intervention) studies. Hand hygiene was the outcome in 8 studies (57%), and an improvement was observed in association with implementation of positive deviance as a single intervention in all of them. Overall HAI rates were measured in 5 studies (36%), and positive deviance was associated with an observed reduction in 4 (80%) of them. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections were evaluated in 5 studies (36%), and positive deviance containing bundles were successful in all of them. CONCLUSIONS: Positive deviance may be an effective strategy to improve hand hygiene and control HAIs. Further studies are needed to confirm this effect.

At the vanguard: Leaders' perspectives on establishing healthcare system infection prevention programs.

Hospitals are increasingly consolidating into health systems. Some systems have appointed healthcare epidemiologists to lead system-level infection prevention programs. Ideal program infrastructure and support resources have not been described. We informally surveyed 7 healthcare epidemiologists with recent experience building and leading system-level infection prevention programs. Key facilitators and barriers for program structure and implementation are described.

Stable Clostridioides difficile infection rates after the discontinuation of ultraviolet light for terminal disinfection at a tertiary care center, Iowa 2019-2020.

We compared the incidence of Clostridioides difficile infection before and after the discontinuation of Ultraviolet light used in addition to bleach in terminal disinfection of hospital rooms. We found no difference in C. difficile infection rates but found a decreased turn over time. The benefit of Ultraviolet light may be diminished in hospitals with a high thoroughness of manual cleaning.

Leapfrog Hospital Safety Score, Magnet Designation, and Healthcare-Associated Infections in United States Hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) pose a challenge to patient safety. Although studies have explored individual level, few have focused on organizational factors such as a hospital's safety infrastructure (indicated by Leapfrog Hospital Safety Score) or workplace quality (Magnet recognition). The aim of the study was to determine whether Magnet and hospitals with better Leapfrog Hospital Safety Scores have fewer HAIs. METHODS: Ordered probit regression analyses tested associations between Safety Score, Magnet status, and standardized infection ratios, depicting whether a hospital had a Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bloodstream infection standardized infection ratio that was "better," "no different," or "worse" than a National Benchmark as per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Healthcare Safety Network definitions. RESULTS: Accounting for confounders, relative to "A" hospitals, "B" and "C" hospitals had significant and negative relationships with CDI (-0.16, P < 0.01, and -0.14, P < 0.05, respectively) but not MRSA bacteremia. Magnet hospitals had a significant and positive relationship with MRSA bloodstream infections (0.74, P < 0.001) but a significant negative relationship with CDI (-0.21, P < 0.01) compared with non-Magnet. CONCLUSIONS: A hospitals performed better on CDI but not MRSA bloodstream infections. In contrast, Magnet designation was associated with fewer than expected MRSA infections but more than expected CDIs. These mixed results indicate that hospital global assessments of safety and workplace quality differentially and imperfectly predict its level of HAIs, suggesting the need for more precise organizational measures of safety and more nuanced approaches to infection prevention and reduction.

The short-term effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines among healthcare workers: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

Objective: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at risk of COVID-19 due to high levels of SARS-CoV-2 exposure. Thus, effective vaccines are needed. We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis on COVID-19 short-term vaccine effectiveness among HCWs. Methods: We searched PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Web of Science from December 2019 to June 11, 2021, for studies evaluating vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic COVID-19 among HCWs. To meta-analyze the extracted data, we calculated the pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) for COVID-19 between vaccinated and unvaccinated HCWs. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% × (1 - DOR). We also performed a stratified analysis for vaccine effectiveness by vaccination status: 1 dose and 2 doses of the vaccine. Results: We included 13 studies, including 173,742 HCWs evaluated for vaccine effectiveness in the meta-analysis. The vast majority (99.9%) of HCWs were vaccinated with the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. The pooled DOR for symptomatic COVID-19 among vaccinated HCWs was 0.072 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.028-0.184) with an estimated vaccine effectiveness of 92.8% (95% CI, 81.6%-97.2%). In stratified analyses, the estimated vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic COVID-19 among HCWs who had received 1 dose of vaccine was 82.1% (95% CI, 46.1%-94.1%) and the vaccine effectiveness among HCWs who had received 2 doses was 93.5% (95% CI, 82.5%-97.6%). Conclusions: The COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are highly effective against symptomatic COVID-19, even with 1 dose. More observational studies are needed to evaluate the vaccine effectiveness of other COVID-19 vaccines, COVID-19 breakthrough after vaccination, and vaccine efficacy against new variants.