Risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission from universally masked healthcare workers to patients or residents: A prospective cohort study.

In a multifacility prospective cohort study, we identified 116 acute care, 26 long-term care, and 67 rehabilitation patients who received direct care from a universally masked healthcare worker while communicable with COVID-19. Among 133(64%) patients with at least 14-day follow-up, 3 (2.3%, 95% CI, 0.77-6.4) became positive for SARS-CoV-2. Universal masking, embedded with other infection control practices, is associated with low risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from healthcare workers to patients and residents.

Are Sink Drainage Systems a Reservoir for Hospital-Acquired Gammaproteobacteria Colonization and Infection? A Systematic Review.

Increasing rates of antimicrobial-resistant organisms have focused attention on sink drainage systems as reservoirs for hospital-acquired Gammaproteobacteria colonization and infection. We aimed to assess the quality of evidence for transmission from this reservoir. We searched 8 databases and identified 52 studies implicating sink drainage systems in acute care hospitals as a reservoir for Gammaproteobacterial colonization/infection. We used a causality tool to summarize the quality of evidence. Included studies provided evidence of co-occurrence of contaminated sink drainage systems and colonization/infection, temporal sequencing compatible with sink drainage reservoirs, some steps in potential causal pathways, and relatedness between bacteria from sink drainage systems and patients. Some studies provided convincing evidence of reduced risk of organism acquisition following interventions. No single study provided convincing evidence across all causality domains, and the attributable fraction of infections related to sink drainage systems remains unknown. These results may help to guide conduct and reporting in future studies.

Safety, effectiveness and sustainability of a laboratory intervention to de-adopt culture of midstream urine samples among hospitalized patients.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety, sustainability, and effectiveness of a laboratory intervention to reduce processing of midstream urine (MSU) cultures. DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort. SETTING: Medical and surgical inpatients in a tertiary-care hospital. PARTICIPANTS: The study included 1,678 adult inpatients with an order for MSU culture. METHODS: From 2013 to 2019, ordered MSU cultures were not processed unless the laboratory was called. Patients were interviewed on days 0 and 4; from 2017 to 2019, day-30 follow-up was added. Primary outcome was serious adverse events due to not processing MSU cultures. Secondary outcomes were nonserious adverse events due to not processing MSU cultures, rates of MSU cultures submitted, proportion of MSU cultures processed, proportion of patients prescribed urinary tract infection (UTI)-directed antibiotics, and laboratory workload. RESULTS: Among 912 and 459 patients followed to days 4 and 30, respectively, no serious adverse events attributable to not processing MSU cultures were identified. However, 6 patients (0.66%) had prolonged urinary symptoms potentially associated with not processing MSU cultures. We estimated that 4 patients missed having empiric antibiotics stopped in response to negative MSU cultures, and 99 antibiotic courses for asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) and 8 antibiotic-associated adverse events were avoided. The rate of submitted MSU samples and proportion of patients receiving empiric UTI-directed antibiotics did not change. The proportion of MSU cultures processed declined from 59% to 49% (P < .0001), and total laboratory workload was reduced by 185 hours. CONCLUSIONS: De-adopting the processing of MSU cultures from medical and surgical inpatient units is safe and sustainable, and it reduces antibiotic prescriptions for ASB at a cost of prolonged urinary symptoms in a small proportion of patients.

Prevention of respiratory outbreaks in the rehabilitation setting.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory viral (RV) outbreaks in rehabilitation facilities can jeopardise patient safety, interfere with patient rehabilitation goals and cause unit closures that impede patient flow in referring facilities. PROBLEM: Despite education about infection prevention practices, frequent RV outbreaks were declared each year at our rehabilitation facility. METHODS: Before and after study design. The primary outcome was the number of bed closure days due to outbreak per overall bed days. Process measures included delays in initiation of transmission-based precautions, RV testing and reporting of staff to occupational health and safety (OHS). Balancing measures included the number of isolation days and staff missed work hours. INTERVENTIONS: Based on comprehensive analysis of prior outbreaks, the following changes were implemented: (1) clear criteria for initiation of transmission-based precautions, (2) communication to visitors to avoid visitation if infectious symptoms were present, (3) exemption of staff absences if documented due to infectious illness, (4) development of an electronic programme providing guidance to staff about whether they should be excluded from work due to infectious illness. RESULTS: The number of bed closure days due to outbreak per overall bed days dropped from 2.8% to 0.5% during the intervention season and sustained at 0.6% during the postintervention season (p<0.001). There were fewer delays in initiation of droplet and contact precautions (28.8% to 15.5%, p=0.005) and collection of RV testing (42.9% to 20.3%, p<0.001), better reporting to OHS (9 vs 28.8 reports per 100 employees; p<0.001) and fewer isolation days (7.8% vs 7.3%; p=0.02) without a significant increase in missed work hours per 100 hours worked (4.0 vs 3.9; p=0.12). CONCLUSION: This Quality Improvement study highlights the process changes that can prevent respiratory outbreaks in the rehabilitation setting.