Clusters of Emerging Multidrug-Resistant Organisms in United States Healthcare Facilities During the Initial Months of the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Outbreaks of emerging multidrug-resistant organisms (eMDROs), including carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE), carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB), and Candida auris, have been reported among SARS-CoV-2 patients. We describe eMDRO clusters in SARS-CoV-2 units and associated infection control (IC) practices early in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective survey of a convenience sample of health departments in 11 states to describe clusters of eMDROs that began before November 1, 2020 and involved SARS-CoV-2 units. Cluster characteristics and IC practices during the cluster period were assessed using a standardized outbreak report form and descriptive analyses were performed. RESULTS: Overall, 18 eMDRO clusters (10 CRE, 6 C. auris, 1 carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and 1 CRAB) in 18 healthcare facilities involving 397 patients were reported from 10 states. During the cluster period, 60% of facilities reported a shortage of isolation gowns, 69% extended use of gowns, and 67% reported difficulty obtaining preferred disinfectants. Reduced frequency of hand hygiene audits was reported in 85% of acute care hospitals during the cluster period compared to before the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Changes in IC practices and supply shortages were identified in facilities with eMDRO outbreaks during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and might have contributed to eMDRO transmission.

Determining barriers to submitting antimicrobial-resistant isolates among hospitals in Texas Public Health Region 8.

Background: The Antimicrobial Resistance Laboratory Network (AR Lab Network) was developed by the CDC to detect emerging antimicrobial-resistant (AR) threats and prevent outbreaks. However, low submission rates of AR isolates limit the potential of the AR Lab Network to address antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Aim: The aim of this study was to investigate barriers to submission of AR isolates in acute care hospitals (ACHs) and critical access hospitals (CAHs) within Texas Public Health Region 8 (PHR8) counties. Methods: A survey was designed and emailed to laboratory professionals to identify barriers to AR isolate submission. Responses were analyzed using 2-sided Fisher's exact tests to identify associations between responses and respondent characteristics. Results: Of the 33 hospitals within PHR8 invited to participate in the survey, responses were received from 21, a response rate of 63.6%. Lack of awareness of the AR Lab Network was the most frequently cited barrier to submission (65.4% of respondents). Other reported barriers to submission included lack of laboratory staff time (57.7%), lack of training with the submission process (34.6%), lack of personnel certified to ship infectious substances (23.1%), and lack of laboratory/shipping supplies (23.1%). Discussion: Regardless of the respondent's role, time in that role, or type of hospital in which they worked, the most common barrier to isolate submission was lack of awareness of the AR Lab Network. In the future, we will address the identified barriers by implementing educational outreach programs about AMR and the AR Lab Network for hospitals and other healthcare facilities within PHR8.

Remote infection control assessments in long-term care facilities during COVID-19 pandemic in Texas, 2020.

BACKGROUND: The Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) Healthcare Safety Unit (HCSU) conducts remote infection control assessments (tele-ICARs) in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) to evaluate COVID-19 infection prevention and control (IPC) knowledge and practices using a standardized assessment tool. Tele-ICARs are used to gauge different IPC measures specific to SARS-CoV-2 and are either proactive--conducted prior to identified cases--or responsive to an outbreak, which is defined as a new SARS-CoV-2 infection in any staff or any facility-onset infection in a resident. State and local partners use findings from the assessments to aid LTCFs by providing targeted and timely resources and support to mitigate identified gaps. METHODS: Data from tele-ICARs conducted between March 1 and October 30, 2020 were analyzed to assess major gaps across LTCF types. A major gap was defined as 10% or more of facilities not satisfying a specific IPC measure, excluding missing data. Gaps were also assessed by tele-ICAR type: proactive or responsive. Fisher's exact tests and univariate logistic regression were used to characterize significant associations between major IPC gaps and LTCF or tele-ICAR type. RESULTS: DSHS conducted tele-ICARs in 438 LTCFs in Texas during 8 months; 191 were nursing homes/skilled nursing facilities (NH/SNFs), 206 were assisted living facilities (ALFs) and 41 were other settings. Of the assessments, 264 were proactive and 174 responsive. Major gaps identified were: (1) 22% did not have a preference for alcohol-based hand sanitizer (ABHS) over soap and water; (2) 18.1% were not aware of the contact time for disinfectants in use; (3) 17.9% had not stopped resident communal dining; (4) 16.8% did not audit hand hygiene and PPE compliance; and (5) 11.8% had not stopped inter-facility group activities and extra-facility field trips. When restricting analyses to proactive tele-ICARs, one additional gap was identified: 11.1% of facilities lacked a dedicated space to care for or cohort residents with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Significantly more ALFs than NH/SNFs had not suspended resident communal dining (P < .001) nor identified a dedicated space to cohort residents with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (P < .001). Significantly more LTCFs that received a responsive ICAR compared to a proactive ICAR reported a preference for ABHS over soap and water (P = .008) and reported suspending communal dining (P < .001) and group activities (P < .001). Also, significantly more LTCFs that received a responsive ICAR compared to a proactive ICAR had identified a dedicated space to cohort residents with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 (P = .009). CONCLUSIONS: Increased facility education and awareness of federal and state guidelines for group activities and communal dining is warranted in Texas, emphasizing the importance of social distancing for preventing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in LTCFs, particularly ALFs. CDC recommendations for ABHS versus hand washing should be emphasized, as well as the importance of monitoring and auditing HCP hand hygiene and PPE compliance. Facilities may benefit from additional education and resources about disinfection, to ensure proper selection of disinfectants and understanding of the contact time required for efficacy. Analysis by tele-ICAR type suggests facilities may benefit from identifying space for dedicated COVID-19 units in advance of an outbreak in their facility. Conducting tele-ICARs in LTCFs enables public health agencies to provide direct and individualized feedback to facilities and identify state-wide opportunities for effective interventions in response to SARS-CoV-2.

Social Support and Health-Related Quality of Life Among Gay and Bisexual Men With Prostate Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To describe social support patterns of gay and bisexual men with prostate cancer (GBMPCa) and how social support is associated with prostate cancer outcomes. SAMPLE & SETTING: A cross-sectional online survey with 186 GBMPCa recruited from a national cancer support group network. METHODS & VARIABLES: Descriptive statistics of social support and linear regression of social support on general and prostate cancer-specific quality of life (QOL). Social support and health-related QOL were assessed generally and specific to prostate cancer. RESULTS: Participants primarily relied on partners or husbands, gay and bisexual friends, chosen family, and men from support groups for support. The most common types of support received were informational and emotional social support. Low general social support was significantly associated with worse prostate cancer symptom bother and general mental QOL. Wanting more social support was significantly associated with worse prostate cancer-specific and general QOL. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Clinicians should be aware of the different social support networks and needs of GBMPCa and refer them to relevant support groups to improve QOL.

Addressing Participant Validity in a Small Internet Health Survey (The Restore Study): Protocol and Recommendations for Survey Response Validation.

BACKGROUND: While deduplication and cross-validation protocols have been recommended for large Web-based studies, protocols for survey response validation of smaller studies have not been published. OBJECTIVE: This paper reports the challenges of survey validation inherent in a small Web-based health survey research. METHODS: The subject population was North American, gay and bisexual, prostate cancer survivors, who represent an under-researched, hidden, difficult-to-recruit, minority-within-a-minority population. In 2015-2016, advertising on a large Web-based cancer survivor support network, using email and social media, yielded 478 completed surveys. RESULTS: Our manual deduplication and cross-validation protocol identified 289 survey submissions (289/478, 60.4%) as likely spam, most stemming from advertising on social media. The basic components of this deduplication and validation protocol are detailed. An unexpected challenge encountered was invalid survey responses evolving across the study period. This necessitated the static detection protocol be augmented with a dynamic one. CONCLUSIONS: Five recommendations for validation of Web-based samples, especially with smaller difficult-to-recruit populations, are detailed.

What Gay and Bisexual Men Treated for Prostate Cancer Want in a Sexual Rehabilitation Program: Results of the Restore Needs Assessment.

Introduction: While erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence are well-documented effects of prostate cancer treatment, the impact of sexual concerns on the lives of gay and bisexual men treated for prostate cancer has not been well researched. Specifically there are no known studies investigating what gay and bisexual men want in sexual recovery treatment. Methods: To conduct this needs assessment, we recruited 193 gay and bisexual men with prostate cancer from the largest online cancer support group in North America. As part of a wider study of sexual functioning, participants completed a 32-item needs assessment and a qualitative question assessing their needs. Results: There was high interest in a sexual recovery program across race/ethnicity and by treatment type. The most preferred formats were a self-directed online curriculum and participation in a support group specific to gay and bisexual men with prostate cancer. A variety of formats, language and contents were deemed appropriate and important by most participants. Frank explicit language and content were preferred. Three themes emerged in the qualitative analysis. Conclusions: Gay and bisexual men treated for prostate cancer want a recovery curriculum that explicitly addresses the sexual challenges they face before, during and after treatment. While differences were identified across race and treatment type, they were relatively few and minor in magnitude, suggesting that a single online curriculum could advance rehabilitation for this population.

What Gay and Bisexual Men Treated for Prostate Cancer Are Offered and Attempt as Sexual Rehabilitation for Prostate Cancer: Results from the Restore Study.

Introduction: This is the first known study to investigate what gay and bisexual men are offered and what they try as rehabilitation to address the sexual and urinary effects of prostate cancer treatment. Methods: A total of 193 gay and bisexual men with prostate cancer were recruited from a large male cancer survivor support and advocacy website. Online participants completed survey questions asking what rehabilitation treatments were offered, what they tried and what their satisfaction was with outcomes. Results: Most participants (68.4%) reported being out as gay/bisexual to at least 1 cancer specialist. Only 8.8% reported that a sexual history was taken. The most common problems reported were loss of ejaculate (93.8%), erectile difficulties (89.6%), change in sense of orgasm (87.0%), loss of sexual confidence (76.7%), changes to the penis (65.8%), increased pain in receptive anal sex (64.8%), urinary incontinence not related to sex (64.2%) and urinary incontinence during sex (49.2%). Of these factors only loss of ejaculate, erectile difficulties and nonsexual urinary problems were commonly discussed by clinicians during prostate cancer treatment. Satisfaction with specific rehabilitation options varied widely. Conclusions: Treatment for prostate cancer lacks adequate history taking and consensus around rehabilitation practices, resulting in idiosyncratic approaches to rehabilitation. Four clinical questions may improve outcomes. Prostate cancer specialists need education to become culturally competent in addressing the unique needs of gay and bisexual patients.

The Effects of Radical Prostatectomy on Gay and Bisexual Men's Mental Health, Sexual Identity and Relationships: Qualitative Results from the Restore Study.

The effect of prostate cancer treatment in gay and bisexual men is an under-researched area. In 2015, we conducted in-depth telephone interviews with 19 gay and bisexual men who had undergone radical prostatectomies. Across the respondents' five emotional themes emerged: (1) shock at the diagnosis, (2) a reactive, self-reported "depression", (3) sex-specific situational anxiety, (4) a sense of grief, and, (5) an enduring loss of sexual confidence. Identity challenges included loss of a sense of maleness and manhood, changes in strength of sexual orientation, role-in-sex identity, and immersion into sexual sub-cultures. Relationship challenges identified included disclosing the sexual effects of treatment to partners, loss of partners, and re-negotiation of sexual exclusivity. Most to all of these effects stem from sexual changes. To mitigate these negative effects of radical prostatectomy, and to address health disparities n outcomes observed in gay and bisexual men, all these challenges need to be considered in any tailored rehabilitation program for gay and bisexual men.

Caregiving and social support for gay and bisexual men with prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Prostate cancer, the second most common cancer among men, typically onsets in middle or older age. Gay/bisexual men have different social networks and unique social support needs, particularly as it pertains to health care access and prostate side effects. Few studies have investigated the availability and provision of social support for gay and bisexual men with prostate cancer (GBMPCa). METHODS: This study used qualitative data from in-depth, semistructured, one-on-one telephone interviews with 30 GBMPCa recruited from a national cancer support group network, Malecare. Inductive and deductive codes were used to identify themes about social support provided to GBMPCa during diagnosis and treatment. RESULTS: GBMPCa reported help from friends, family (parents and siblings), ex-partners, and paid caregivers. Men in relationships reported varying levels of reliance on their partners for support, in part due to relationship dynamics and living arrangements. Single men showed a theme of independence ("I turned down all help," "My friends don't want to be bothered"). After diagnosis, many men reported seeking informational and emotional support from prostate cancer support groups; most expressed wanting more support groups specifically for GBMPCa. During or after treatment, men reported receiving a range of instrumental support, largely a function of relationship status and treatment type. CONCLUSIONS: GBMPCa received variable, but generally low, social support during diagnosis and treatment and from a diverse social network, including a prominence of friends and family. Clinicians should be aware of GBMPCa's distinct patterns of social support needs and providers.

The effects of radical prostatectomy on gay and bisexual men's sexual functioning and behavior: qualitative results from the restore study.

To advance research on the sexual effects of prostate cancer in sexual minorities, we conducted telephone interviews with 19 gay and bisexual men (GBM) who had undergone radical prostatectomies. Challenges to sexual functioning included anatomical penile changes, loss of ejaculate, climacturia, and erectile dysfunction. All sexual behavior with other men, not just insertive anal sex, was affected, across all stages of the sexual response cycle. Rather than narrowly focusing on erectile functioning, rehabilitation for GBM needs to be comprehensive in addressing anatomical changes, sexual behavior comprehensively, and functioning across the sexual response cycle. Seven recommendations for practitioner education are identified.

Improving health services for residents through community-based participatory research: a public housing leadership perspective.

BACKGROUND: In response to feedback from a health forum, resident leaders of public housing in Washington, DC, were inspired to create a health survey for and by the residents. OBJECTIVE: The survey was designed to document residents' concerns about health, health care, and environmental threats. It also explored tobacco use and support for smoke-free housing. METHODS: A newly created Health Planning Committee of the Citywide Advisory Board, including residents, academics, and representatives of health and housing organizations, facilitated the creation of a health needs assessment. Questionnaires were initially mailed, then hand-delivered to every public housing household. More than 1,000 completed questionnaires have now been returned. LESSONS LEARNED: This project highlights a model that places resident leaders in charge of health issues, including leading advocacy efforts for policies to reduce health disparities in public housing. It identifies research challenges and ways to overcome them and empowers the community for continued research.