Cold Agglutinin Disease and COVID-19: A Scoping Review of Treatments and Outcomes.

Background: Reports suggest that patients with both acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and cold agglutinin disease (CAD) may experience poorer survival when treated with rituximab. We conducted a scoping review to evaluate severe outcomes, including intensive care unit (ICU) admission and mortality, in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with CAD on various treatments, including rituximab. Methods: This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Four literature databases were searched on December 19, 2023, for studies reporting lab-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 and CAD, excluding rheumatological conditions. Results: Of the 741 screened articles, 19 were included. Studies, predominantly case reports (17/19) or case series (2/19), were mainly from the USA (8/19) and India (3/19), with others across Europe and Asia. Among 23 patients (61% female, median age 61 years), 21/23 had a new CAD diagnosis; only two had pre-existing CAD. Overall, 74% recovered, 21% died, and outcomes for one were unreported. Nine (39%) were ICU-admitted. Of rituximab-treated patients (n = 4), 25% were ICU-admitted, none died. Non-rituximab treatments (n = 19) saw 42% ICU admissions and 26% mortality. Conclusions: This review found no increased risk of severe outcomes in CAD and COVID-19 patients treated with rituximab.

Feasibility of a pharmacy-led intervention to de-implement non-guideline-concordant proton pump inhibitor use.

BACKGROUND: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are among the most prescribed medications and are often used unnecessarily. PPIs are used for the treatment of heartburn and acid-related disorders. Emerging evidence indicates that PPIs are associated with serious adverse events, such as increased risk of Clostridioides difficile infection. In this study, we designed and piloted a PPI de-implementation intervention among hospitalized non-intensive care unit patients. METHODS: Using the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) model as the framework, we developed an intervention with input from providers and patients. On a bi-weekly basis, a trainee pharmacist reviewed a random sample of eligible patients' charts to assess if PPI prescriptions were guideline-concordant; a recommendation to de-implement non-guideline-concordant PPI therapy was sent when applicable. We used convergent parallel mixed-methods design to evaluate the feasibility and outcomes of the intervention. RESULTS: During the study period (September 2019 to August 2020), 2171 patients with an active PPI prescription were admitted. We randomly selected 155 patient charts for review. The mean age of patients was 70.9 ± 9 years, 97.4% were male, and 35% were on PPIs for ≥5 years. The average time (minutes) needed to complete the intervention was as follows: 5 to assess if the PPI was guideline-concordant, 5 to provide patient education, and 7 to follow-up with patients post-discharge. After intervention initiation, the week-to-week mean number of PPI prescriptions decreased by 0.5 (S<0.0001). Barriers and facilitators spanned the 5 elements of the SEIPS model and included factors such as providers' perception that PPIs are low priority medications and patients' willingness to make changes to their PPI therapy if needed, respectively. Ready access to pharmacists was another frequently reported facilitator to guideline-concordant PPI. Providers recommended a PPI de-implementation intervention that is specific and tells them exactly what they need to do with a PPI treatment. CONCLUSION: In a busy inpatient setting, we developed a feasible way to assess PPI therapy, de-implement non-guideline-concordant PPI use, and provide follow-up to assess any unintended consequences. We documented barriers, facilitators, and provider recommendations that should be considered before implementing such an intervention on a large scale.

Prevalence and outcomes of co-infection and superinfection with SARS-CoV-2 and other pathogens: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The recovery of other pathogens in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection has been reported, either at the time of a SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis (co-infection) or subsequently (superinfection). However, data on the prevalence, microbiology, and outcomes of co-infection and superinfection are limited. The purpose of this study was to examine the occurrence of co-infections and superinfections and their outcomes among patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We searched literature databases for studies published from October 1, 2019, through February 8, 2021. We included studies that reported clinical features and outcomes of co-infection or superinfection of SARS-CoV-2 and other pathogens in hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients. We followed PRISMA guidelines, and we registered the protocol with PROSPERO as: CRD42020189763. RESULTS: Of 6639 articles screened, 118 were included in the random effects meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of co-infection was 19% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 14%-25%, I2 = 98%) and that of superinfection was 24% (95% CI: 19%-30%). Pooled prevalence of pathogen type stratified by co- or superinfection were: viral co-infections, 10% (95% CI: 6%-14%); viral superinfections, 4% (95% CI: 0%-10%); bacterial co-infections, 8% (95% CI: 5%-11%); bacterial superinfections, 20% (95% CI: 13%-28%); fungal co-infections, 4% (95% CI: 2%-7%); and fungal superinfections, 8% (95% CI: 4%-13%). Patients with a co-infection or superinfection had higher odds of dying than those who only had SARS-CoV-2 infection (odds ratio = 3.31, 95% CI: 1.82-5.99). Compared to those with co-infections, patients with superinfections had a higher prevalence of mechanical ventilation (45% [95% CI: 33%-58%] vs. 10% [95% CI: 5%-16%]), but patients with co-infections had a greater average length of hospital stay than those with superinfections (mean = 29.0 days, standard deviation [SD] = 6.7 vs. mean = 16 days, SD = 6.2, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that as many as 19% of patients with COVID-19 have co-infections and 24% have superinfections. The presence of either co-infection or superinfection was associated with poor outcomes, including increased mortality. Our findings support the need for diagnostic testing to identify and treat co-occurring respiratory infections among patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Are Fluoroquinolones or Macrolides Better for Treating Legionella Pneumonia? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Infectious Diseases Society of America recommends either a fluoroquinolone or a macrolide as a first-line antibiotic treatment for Legionella pneumonia, but it is unclear which antibiotic leads to optimal clinical outcomes. We compared the effectiveness of fluoroquinolone versus macrolide monotherapy in Legionella pneumonia using a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of literature in PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to 1 June 2019. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing macrolide with fluoroquinolone monotherapy using clinical outcomes in patients with Legionella pneumonia were included. Twenty-one publications out of an initial 2073 unique records met the selection criteria. Following PRISMA guidelines, 2 reviewers participated in data extraction. The primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes included clinical cure, time to apyrexia, length of hospital stay (LOS), and the occurrence of complications. The review and meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019132901). RESULTS: Twenty-one publications with 3525 patients met inclusion criteria. The mean age of the population was 60.9 years and 67.2% were men. The mortality rate for patients treated with fluoroquinolones was 6.9% (104/1512) compared with 7.4% (133/1790) among those treated with macrolides. The pooled odds ratio assessing risk of mortality for patients treated with fluoroquinolones versus macrolides was 0.94 (95% confidence interval, .71-1.25, I2 = 0%, P = .661). Clinical cure, time to apyrexia, LOS, and the occurrence of complications did not differ for patients treated with fluoroquinolones versus macrolides. CONCLUSIONS: We found no difference in the effectiveness of fluoroquinolones versus macrolides in reducing mortality among patients with Legionella pneumonia.

Implementing daily chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) bathing in VA settings: The human factors engineering to prevent resistant organisms (HERO) project.

BACKGROUND: Daily use of chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) has been shown to reduce risk of healthcare-associated infections. We aimed to assess moving CHG bathing into routine practice using a human factors approach. We evaluated implementation in non-intensive care unit (ICU) settings in the Veterans Health Administration. METHODS: Our multiple case study approach included non-ICU units from 4 Veterans Health Administration settings. Guided by the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety, we conducted focus groups and interviews to capture barriers and facilitators to daily CHG bathing. We measured compliance using observations and skin CHG concentrations. RESULTS: Barriers to daily CHG include time, concern of increasing antibiotic resistance, workflow and product concerns. Facilitators include engagement of champions and unit shared responsibility. We found shortfalls in patient education, hand hygiene and CHG use on tubes and drains. CHG skin concentration levels were highest among patients from spinal cord injury units. These units applied antiseptic using 2% CHG impregnated wipes vs 4% CHG solution/soap. DISCUSSION: Non-ICUs implementing CHG bathing must consider human factors and work system barriers to ensure uptake and sustained practice change. CONCLUSIONS: Well-planned rollouts and a unit culture promoting shared responsibility are key to compliance with daily CHG bathing. Successful implementation requires attention to staff education and measurement of compliance.

Nasal povidone-iodine implementation for preventing surgical site infections: Perspectives of surgical nurses.

INTRODUCTION: Preoperative nasal decolonization of surgical patients with nasal povidone-iodine (PI) has potential to eliminate pathogenic organisms responsible for surgical site infections. However, data on implementation of PI for quality improvement in clinical practice is limited. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the implementation feasibility, fidelity and acceptability of intranasal PI solution application by surgical nurses using the Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) conceptual framework. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the i-PARIHS framework to frame questions and guide interview content areas, we conducted 15 semi-structured interviews of pre- and post-operative care nurses in two facilities. We analyzed the data using deductive content analysis to evaluate nurses' experience and perceptions on preoperative intranasal PI solution decolonization implementation. Open coding was used to analyze the data to ensure all relevant information was captured. RESULTS: Each facility adopted a different quality improvement implementation strategy. The mode of facilitation, training, and educational materials provided to the nurses varied by facility. Barriers identified included lack of effective communication, insufficient information and lack of systematic implementation protocol. Action taken to mitigate some of the barriers included a collaboration between the study team and nurses to develop a systematic written protocol. The training assisted nurses to systematically follow the implementation protocol smoothly to ensure PI administration compliance, and to meet the goal of the facilities. Nurses' observations and feedback showed that PI did not cause any adverse effects on patients. CONCLUSIONS: We found that PI implementation was feasible and acceptable by nurses and could be extended to other facilities. However further studies are required to ensure standardization of PI application.

Implementing daily chlorhexidine gluconate treatment for the prevention of healthcare-associated infections in non-intensive care settings: A multiple case analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Daily bathing with chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) in hospitalized patients reduces healthcare-associated bloodstream infections and colonization by multidrug-resistant organisms. Achieving compliance with bathing protocols is challenging. This non-intensive care unit multicenter project evaluated the impact of organizational context on implementation of CHG and assessed compliance with and healthcare workers' perceptions of the intervention. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a multiple case study based on the SEIPS (Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety) model of work system and patient safety. The four sites included an adult cardiovascular unit in a community hospital, a medical-surgical unit in an academic teaching pediatric hospital, an adult medical-surgical acute care unit and an adult neuroscience acute care unit in another academic teaching hospital. Complementary data collection methods included focus groups and interviews with healthcare workers (HCWs) and leaders, and direct observations of the CHG treatment process and skin swabs. RESULTS: We collected 389 bathing observations and 110 skin swabs, conducted four focus groups with frontline workers and interviewed leaders. We found variation across cases in CHG compliance, skin swab data and implementation practices. Mean compliance with the bathing process ranged from 64% to 83%. Low detectable CHG on the skin was related to immediate rinsing of CHG from the skin. Variation in the implementation of CHG treatments was related to differences in organizational education and training practices, feedback and monitoring practices, patient education or information about CHG treatments, patient preferences and general unit patient population differences. CONCLUSION: Organizations planning to implement CHG treatments in non-ICU settings should ensure organizational readiness and buy-in and consider delivering systematic and ongoing training. Clear and systematic implementation policies across patients and units may help reduce potential confusion about treatment practices and variation across HCWs. Patient populations and unit factors need to be carefully considered and procedures developed to manage unique challenges.

Using a Systems Engineering Framework to Evaluate Proton Pump Inhibitor Prescribing in Critically Ill Patients.

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are a risk factor for hospital-acquired Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). Much PPI use is inappropriate, and interventions to reduce PPI use, such as for stress ulcer prophylaxis in all critically ill patients, are essential to reduce CDI rates. This mixed-methods study in a combined medical-surgical intensive care unit at a tertiary academic medical center used a human factors engineering approach to understand barriers and facilitators to optimizing PPI prescribing in these patients. We performed chart review of patients for whom PPIs were prescribed to evaluate prescribing practices. Semistructured provider interviews were conducted to determine barriers and facilitators to reducing unnecessary PPI use. Emergent themes from provider interviews were classified according to the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety model. In our intensive care unit, 25% of PPI days were not clinically indicated. Barriers to optimizing PPI prescribing included inadequate provider education, lack of institutional guidelines for stress ulcer prophylaxis, and strong institutional culture favoring PPI use. Potential facilitators included increased pharmacy oversight, provider education, and embedded decision support in the electronic medical record. Interventions addressing barriers noted by front line providers are needed to reduce unnecessary PPI use, and future studies should assess the impact of such interventions on CDI rates.

Correlation of prevention practices with rates of health care-associated Clostridioides difficile infection.

OBJECTIVE: We examined Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) prevention practices and their relationship with hospital-onset healthcare facility-associated CDI rates (CDI rates) in Veterans Affairs (VA) acute-care facilities. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: From January 2017 to February 2017, we conducted an electronic survey of CDI prevention practices and hospital characteristics in the VA. We linked survey data with CDI rate data for the period January 2015 to December 2016. We stratified facilities according to whether their overall CDI rate per 10,000 bed days of care was above or below the national VA mean CDI rate. We examined whether specific CDI prevention practices were associated with an increased risk of a CDI rate above the national VA mean CDI rate. RESULTS: All 126 facilities responded (100% response rate). Since implementing CDI prevention practices in July 2012, 60 of 123 facilities (49%) reported a decrease in CDI rates; 22 of 123 facilities (18%) reported an increase, and 41 of 123 (33%) reported no change. Facilities reporting an increase in the CDI rate (vs those reporting a decrease) after implementing prevention practices were 2.54 times more likely to have CDI rates that were above the national mean CDI rate. Whether a facility's CDI rates were above or below the national mean CDI rate was not associated with self-reported cleaning practices, duration of contact precautions, availability of private rooms, or certification of infection preventionists in infection prevention. CONCLUSIONS: We found considerable variation in CDI rates. We were unable to identify which particular CDI prevention practices (i.e., bundle components) were associated with lower CDI rates.

Implementation of a Clostridioides difficile prevention bundle: Understanding common, unique, and conflicting work system barriers and facilitators for subprocess design.

OBJECTIVE: Clostridioides difficile (C. difficile) poses a major challenge to the healthcare system. We assessed factors that should be considered when designing subprocesses of a C. difficile infection (CDI) prevention bundle. DESIGN: Phenomenological qualitative study. METHODS: We conducted 3 focus groups of environmental services (EVS) staff, physicians, and nurses to assess their perspectives on a CDI prevention bundle. We used the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) model to examine 5 subprocesses of the CDI bundle: diagnostic testing, empiric isolation, contact isolation, hand hygiene, and environmental disinfection. We coded transcripts to the 5 SEIPS elements and ensured scientific rigor. We sought to determine common, unique, and conflicting factors across stakeholder groups and subprocesses of the CDI bundle. RESULTS: Each focus group lasted 1.5 hours on average. Common work-system barriers included inconsistencies in knowledge and practice of CDI management procedures; increased workload; poor setup of aspects of the physical environment (eg, inconvenient location of sinks); and inconsistencies in CDI documentation. Unique barriers and facilitators were related to specific activities performed by the stakeholder group. For instance, algorithmic approaches used by physicians facilitated timely diagnosis of CDI. Conflicting barriers or facilitators were related to opposing objectives; for example, clinicians needed rapid placement of a patient in a room while EVS staff needed time to disinfect the room. CONCLUSIONS: A systems engineering approach can help to holistically identify factors that influence successful implementation of subprocesses of infection prevention bundles.

The impact of chlorhexidine bathing on hospital-acquired bloodstream infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) bathing of hospitalized patients may have benefit in reducing hospital-acquired bloodstream infections (HABSIs). However, the magnitude of effect, implementation fidelity, and patient-centered outcomes are unclear. In this meta-analysis, we examined the effect of CHG bathing on prevention of HABSIs and assessed fidelity to implementation of this behavioral intervention. METHODS: We undertook a meta-analysis by searching Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Cochrane's CENTRAL registry from database inception through January 4, 2019 without language restrictions. We included randomized controlled trials, cluster randomized trials and quasi-experimental studies that evaluated the effect of CHG bathing versus a non-CHG comparator for prevention of HABSIs in any adult healthcare setting. Studies of pediatric patients, of pre-surgical CHG use, or without a non-CHG comparison arm were excluded. Outcomes of this study were HABSIs, patient-centered outcomes, such as patient comfort during the bath, and implementation fidelity assessed through five elements: adherence, exposure or dose, quality of the delivery, participant responsiveness, and program differentiation. Three authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality; a random-effects model was used. RESULTS: We included 26 studies with 861,546 patient-days and 5259 HABSIs. CHG bathing markedly reduced the risk of HABSIs (IRR = 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.52-0.68). The effect of CHG bathing was consistent within subgroups: randomized (0.67, 95% CI: 0.53-0.85) vs. non-randomized studies (0.54, 95% CI: 0.44-0.65), bundled (0.66, 95% CI: 0.62-0.70) vs. non-bundled interventions (0.51, 95% CI: 0.39-0.68), CHG impregnated wipes (0.63, 95% CI: 0.55-0.73) vs. CHG solution (0.41, 95% CI: 0.26-0.64), and intensive care unit (ICU) (0.58, 95% CI: 0.49-0.68) vs. non-ICU settings (0.56, 95% CI: 0.38-0.83). Only three studies reported all five measures of fidelity, and ten studies did not report any patient-centered outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Patient bathing with CHG significantly reduced the incidence of HABSIs in both ICU and non-ICU settings. Many studies did not report fidelity to the intervention or patient-centered outcomes. For sustainability and replicability essential for effective implementation, fidelity assessment that goes beyond whether a patient received an intervention or not should be standard practice particularly for complex behavioral interventions such as CHG bathing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Study registration with PROSPERO CRD42015032523 .

Implementation of daily chlorhexidine bathing to reduce colonization by multidrug-resistant organisms in a critical care unit.

BACKGROUND: Colonized patients are a reservoir for transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs). Not many studies have examined the effectiveness of daily chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) bathing under routine care conditions. We present a descriptive analysis of the trends of MDRO colonization following implementation of daily CHG bathing under routine clinical conditions in an intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: From May 2010-January 2011, we screened patients admitted to a 24-bed ICU for and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), and fluoroquinolone-resistant gram-negative bacilli (FQRGNB). We calculated and plotted monthly incidence and prevalence of colonization of these MDROs. RESULTS: Prevalence decreased in the immediate aftermath of daily CHG bathing implementation and generally remained at that level throughout the observation period. We observed low rates of incidence of MDRO colonization with VRE>FQRGNB>MRSA. Monthly prevalence of colonization and incidence for the composite of MRSA, VRE, and/or FQRGNB was 1.9%-27.9% and 0-1.1/100 patient-days, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Following the implementation of daily CHG bathing, the incidence of MDROs remained low and constant over time, whereas the prevalence decreased immediately after the implementation.

Analysis of Multidrug-Resistant Organism Susceptibility to Chlorhexidine Under Usual Clinical Care.

Increasing use of daily chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) bathing can potentially lead to selection for organisms with reduced susceptibility to CHG, limiting the utility of CHG. We examined reduced susceptibility to CHG of fluoroquinolone-resistant gram-negative bacilli and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus. No evidence suggested reduced susceptibility to CHG. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:729-731.

Risk of Clostridium difficile Infection in Hematology-Oncology Patients Colonized With Toxigenic C. difficile.

The prevalence of colonization with toxigenic Clostridium difficile among patients with hematological malignancies and/or bone marrow transplant at admission to a 566-bed academic medical care center was 9.3%, and 13.3% of colonized patients developed symptomatic disease during hospitalization. This population may benefit from targeted C. difficile infection control interventions. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:718-720.

Reducing Clostridium difficile in the Inpatient Setting: A Systematic Review of the Adherence to and Effectiveness of C. difficile Prevention Bundles.

BACKGROUND Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is the most common infectious cause of nosocomial diarrhea, and its prevention is an urgent public health priority. However, reduction of CDI is challenging because of its complex pathogenesis, large reservoirs of colonized patients, and the persistence of infectious spores. The literature lacks high-quality evidence for evaluating interventions, and many hospitals have implemented bundled interventions to reduce CDI with variable results. Thus, we conducted a systematic review to examine the components of CDI bundles, their implementation processes, and their impact on CDI rates. METHODS We conducted a comprehensive literature search of multiple computerized databases from their date of inception through April 30, 2016. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO, an international prospective register of systematic reviews. Bundle effectiveness, adherence, and study quality were assessed for each study meeting our criteria for inclusion. RESULTS In the 26 studies that met the inclusion criteria for this review, implementation and adherence factors to interventions were variably and incompletely reported, making study reproducibility and replicability challenging. Despite contextual differences and the variety of bundle components utilized, all 26 studies reported an improvement in CDI rates. However, given the lack of randomized controlled trials in the literature, assessing a causal relationship between bundled interventions and CDI rates is currently impossible. CONCLUSION Cluster randomized trials that include a rigorous assessment of the implementation of bundled interventions are urgently needed to causally test the effect of intervention bundles on CDI rates. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:639-650.

Assessing the sustainability of daily chlorhexidine bathing in the intensive care unit of a Veteran's Hospital by examining nurses' perspectives and experiences.

BACKGROUND: Daily bathing with chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) of intensive care unit (ICU) patients has been shown to reduce healthcare-associated infections and colonization by multidrug resistant organisms. The objective of this project was to describe the process of daily CHG bathing and identify the barriers and facilitators that can influence its successful adoption and sustainability in an ICU of a Veterans Administration Hospital. METHODS: We conducted 26 semi-structured interviews with a convenience sample of 4 nurse managers (NMs), 13 registered nurses (RNs) and 9 health care technicians (HCTs) working in the ICU. We used qualitative content analysis to code and analyze the data. Dedoose software was used to facilitate data management and coding. Trustworthiness and scientific integrity of the data were ensured by having two authors corroborate the coding process, conducting member checks and keeping an audit trail of all the decisions made. RESULTS: Duration of the interviews was 15 to 39 min (average = 26 min). Five steps of bathing were identified: 1) decision to give a bath; 2) ability to give a bath; 3) decision about which soap to use; 4) delegation of a bath; and 5) getting assistance to do a bath. The bathing process resulted in one of the following three outcomes: 1) complete bath; 2) interrupted bath; and 3) bath not done. The outcome was influenced by a combination of barriers and facilitators at each step. Most barriers were related to perceived workload, patient factors, and scheduling. Facilitators were mainly organizational factors such as the policy of daily CHG bathing, the consistent supply of CHG soap, and support such as reminders to conduct CHG baths by nurse managers. CONCLUSIONS: Patient bathing in ICUs is a complex process that can be hindered and interrupted by numerous factors. The decision to use CHG soap for bathing was only one of 5 steps of bathing and was largely influenced by scheduling/workload and patient factors such as clinical stability, hypersensitivity to CHG, patient refusal, presence of IV lines and general hygiene. Interventions that address the organizational, provider, and patient barriers to bathing could improve adherence to a daily CHG bathing protocol.

Incidence and risk factors for surgical site infection post-hysterectomy in a tertiary care center.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis and surgical technological advances have greatly reduced, but not totally eliminated surgical site infection (SSI) posthysterectomy. We aimed to identify risk factors for SSI posthysterectomy among women with a high prevalence of gynecologic malignancies, in a tertiary care setting where compliance with the Joint Commission's Surgical Care Improvement Project core measures is excellent. METHODS: The study was a matched case-control, 2 controls per case, matched on date of surgery. Study time was January 2, 2012-December 31, 2015. Procedures included abdominal and vaginal hysterectomies (open, laparoscopic, and robotic). SSI (superficial incisional or deep/organ/space) was defined as within 30 days postoperatively, per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria. Statistical analysis included bivariate analysis and conditional logistic regression controlling for demographic and clinical variables, both patient-related and surgery-related, including detailed prophylactic antibiotic exposure. RESULTS: Of the total 1,531 hysterectomies performed, we identified 52 SSIs (3%), with 60% being deep incisional or organ/space infections. All case patients received appropriate preoperative antibiotics (timing, choice, and weight-based dosing). Bivariate analysis showed that higher median weight, higher median Charlson comorbidity index, immune suppressed state, American Society of Anesthesiologists score ≥ 3, prior surgery within 60 days, clindamycin/gentamicin prophylaxis, surgery involving the omentum or gastrointestinal tract, longer surgery duration, ≥4 surgeons present in the operating room, higher median blood loss, ≥7 catheters or invasive devices in the operating room, and higher median length of hospital stay increased SSI risk (P < .05 for all). Cefazolin preoperative prophylaxis, robot-assisted surgery, and laparoscopic surgery were protective (P < .05 for all). Duration of surgery was the only independent risk factor for SSI identified on multivariate analysis (odds ratio, 3.45; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-9.76; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: In our population of women with multimorbidity and hysterectomies largely due to underlying gynecologic malignancies, duration of surgery, presumed a marker of surgical complexity, is a significant SSI risk factor. The choice of preoperative antibiotic did not alter SSI risk in our study.

Status of the Prevention of Multidrug-Resistant Organisms in International Settings: A Survey of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America Research Network.

OBJECTIVE To examine self-reported practices and policies to reduce infection and transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO) in healthcare settings outside the United States. DESIGN Cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS International members of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) Research Network. METHODS Electronic survey of infection control and prevention practices, capabilities, and barriers outside the United States and Canada. Participants were stratified according to their country's economic development status as defined by the World Bank as low-income, lower-middle-income, upper-middle-income, and high-income. RESULTS A total of 76 respondents (33%) of 229 SHEA members outside the United States and Canada completed the survey questionnaire, representing 30 countries. Forty (53%) were high-, 33 (43%) were middle-, and 1 (1%) was a low-income country. Country data were missing for 2 respondents (3%). Of the 76 respondents, 64 (84%) reported having a formal or informal antibiotic stewardship program at their institution. High-income countries were more likely than middle-income countries to have existing MDRO policies (39/64 [61%] vs 25/64 [39%], P=.003) and to place patients with MDRO in contact precautions (40/72 [56%] vs 31/72 [44%], P=.05). Major barriers to preventing MDRO transmission included constrained resources (infrastructure, supplies, and trained staff) and challenges in changing provider behavior. CONCLUSIONS In this survey, a substantial proportion of institutions reported encountering barriers to implementing key MDRO prevention strategies. Interventions to address capacity building internationally are urgently needed. Data on the infection prevention practices of low income countries are needed. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2016:1-8.