Occupational risk factors for severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among healthcare personnel: A 6-month prospective analysis of the COVID-19 Prevention in Emory Healthcare Personnel (COPE) Study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the incidence of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among healthcare personnel (HCP) and to assess occupational risks for SARS-CoV-2 infection. DESIGN: Prospective cohort of healthcare personnel (HCP) followed for 6 months from May through December 2020. SETTING: Large academic healthcare system including 4 hospitals and affiliated clinics in Atlanta, Georgia. PARTICIPANTS: HCP, including those with and without direct patient-care activities, working during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: Incident SARS-CoV-2 infections were determined through serologic testing for SARS-CoV-2 IgG at enrollment, at 3 months, and at 6 months. HCP completed monthly surveys regarding occupational activities. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify occupational factors that increased the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: Of the 304 evaluable HCP that were seronegative at enrollment, 26 (9%) seroconverted for SARS-CoV-2 IgG by 6 months. Overall, 219 participants (73%) self-identified as White race, 119 (40%) were nurses, and 121 (40%) worked on inpatient medical-surgical floors. In a multivariable analysis, HCP who identified as Black race were more likely to seroconvert than HCP who identified as White (odds ratio, 4.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-14.2). Increased risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection was not identified for any occupational activity, including spending >50% of a typical shift at a patient's bedside, working in a COVID-19 unit, or performing or being present for aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs). CONCLUSIONS: In our study cohort of HCP working in an academic healthcare system, <10% had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection over 6 months. No specific occupational activities were identified as increasing risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Occupational risk factors for severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among healthcare personnel: A cross-sectional analysis of subjects enrolled in the COVID-19 Prevention in Emory Healthcare Personnel (COPE) study.

Among 353 healthcare personnel in a longitudinal cohort in 4 hospitals in Atlanta, Georgia (May-June 2020), 23 (6.5%) had severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies. Spending >50% of a typical shift at the bedside (OR, 3.4; 95% CI, 1.2-10.5) and black race (OR, 8.4; 95% CI, 2.7-27.4) were associated with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity.

Risk Factors Associated With SARS-CoV-2 Seropositivity Among US Health Care Personnel.

Importance: Risks for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among health care personnel (HCP) are unclear. Objective: To evaluate the risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity among HCP with the a priori hypothesis that community exposure but not health care exposure was associated with seropositivity. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study was conducted among volunteer HCP at 4 large health care systems in 3 US states. Sites shared deidentified data sets, including previously collected serology results, questionnaire results on community and workplace exposures at the time of serology, and 3-digit residential zip code prefix of HCP. Site-specific responses were mapped to a common metadata set. Residential weekly coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cumulative incidence was calculated from state-based COVID-19 case and census data. Exposures: Model variables included demographic (age, race, sex, ethnicity), community (known COVID-19 contact, COVID-19 cumulative incidence by 3-digit zip code prefix), and health care (workplace, job role, COVID-19 patient contact) factors. Main Outcome and Measures: The main outcome was SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. Risk factors for seropositivity were estimated using a mixed-effects logistic regression model with a random intercept to account for clustering by site. Results: Among 24 749 HCP, most were younger than 50 years (17 233 [69.6%]), were women (19 361 [78.2%]), were White individuals (15 157 [61.2%]), and reported workplace contact with patients with COVID-19 (12 413 [50.2%]). Many HCP worked in the inpatient setting (8893 [35.9%]) and were nurses (7830 [31.6%]). Cumulative incidence of COVID-19 per 10 000 in the community up to 1 week prior to serology testing ranged from 8.2 to 275.6; 20 072 HCP (81.1%) reported no COVID-19 contact in the community. Seropositivity was 4.4% (95% CI, 4.1%-4.6%; 1080 HCP) overall. In multivariable analysis, community COVID-19 contact and community COVID-19 cumulative incidence were associated with seropositivity (community contact: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 3.5; 95% CI, 2.9-4.1; community cumulative incidence: aOR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.3-2.6). No assessed workplace factors were associated with seropositivity, including nurse job role (aOR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.9-1.3), working in the emergency department (aOR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.8-1.3), or workplace contact with patients with COVID-19 (aOR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.9-1.3). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of US HCP in 3 states, community exposures were associated with seropositivity to SARS-CoV-2, but workplace factors, including workplace role, environment, or contact with patients with known COVID-19, were not. These findings provide reassurance that current infection prevention practices in diverse health care settings are effective in preventing transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from patients to HCP.

Quantification of Occupational and Community Risk Factors for SARS-CoV-2 Seropositivity Among Health Care Workers in a Large U.S. Health Care System.

BACKGROUND: Identifying occupational risk factors for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among health care workers (HCWs) can improve HCW and patient safety. OBJECTIVE: To quantify demographic, occupational, and community risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity among HCWs in a large health care system. DESIGN: A logistic regression model was fitted to data from a cross-sectional survey conducted in April to June 2020, linking risk factors for occupational and community exposure to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. SETTING: A large academic health care system in the Atlanta, Georgia, metropolitan area. PARTICIPANTS: Employees and medical staff members elected to participate in SARS-CoV-2 serology testing offered to all HCWs as part of a quality initiative and completed a survey on exposure to COVID-19 and use of personal protective equipment. MEASUREMENTS: Demographic risk factors for COVID-19, residential ZIP code incidence of COVID-19, occupational exposure to HCWs or patients who tested positive on polymerase chain reaction test, and use of personal protective equipment as potential risk factors for infection. The outcome was SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. RESULTS: Adjusted SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity was estimated to be 3.8% (95% CI, 3.4% to 4.3%) (positive, n = 582) among the 10 275 HCWs (35% of the Emory Healthcare workforce) who participated in the survey. Community contact with a person known or suspected to have COVID-19 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.9 [CI, 1.4 to 2.6]; 77 positive persons [10.3%]) and community COVID-19 incidence (aOR, 1.5 [CI, 1.0 to 2.2]) increased the odds of infection. Black individuals were at high risk (aOR, 2.1 [CI, 1.7 to 2.6]; 238 positive persons [8.3%]). LIMITATIONS: Participation rates were modest and key workplace exposures, including job and infection prevention practices, changed rapidly in the early phases of the pandemic. CONCLUSION: Demographic and community risk factors, including contact with a COVID-19-positive person and Black race, are more strongly associated with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity among HCWs than is exposure in the workplace. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Emory COVID-19 Response Collaborative.

Immunomodulatory Low-Dose Whole-Lung Radiation for Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019-Related Pneumonia.

PURPOSE: Phase 1 clinical trials have established low-dose, whole-lung radiation therapy (LD-RT) as safe for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related pneumonia. By focally dampening cytokine hyperactivation, LD-RT may improve disease outcomes through immunomodulation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with COVID-19-related pneumonia were treated with 1.5 Gy whole-lung LD-RT, followed for 28 days or until hospital discharge, and compared with age- and comorbidity-matched controls meeting identical disease severity criteria. Eligible patients were hospitalized, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2) positive, had radiographic consolidations, and required supplemental oxygen but had not rapidly declined on admission or before drug therapy or LD-RT. Efficacy endpoints were time to clinical recovery, radiographic improvement, and biomarker response. RESULTS: Ten patients received whole-lung LD-RT between April 24 and May 24, 2020 and were compared with 10 control patients blindly matched by age and comorbidity. Six controls received COVID-19 drug therapies. Median time to clinical recovery was 12 days in the control cohort compared with 3 days in the LD-RT cohort (hazard ratio 2.9, P = .05). Median time to hospital discharge (20 vs 12 days, P = .19) and intubation rates (40% vs 10%, P = .12) in the control and LD-RT cohorts were compared. Median time from admission to recovery was 10 versus 13 days (P = .13). Hospital duration average was 19 versus 22.6 days (P = .53). Average hospital days on supplemental oxygen of any duration was 13.1 versus 14.7 days (P = .69). Average days with a documented fever was 1 versus 4.3 days (P = .12). Twenty-eight-day overall survival was 90% for both cohorts. The LD-RT cohort trended toward superior rates of improved radiographs (P = .12) and delirium (P < .01). Statistically significant reductions were observed in numerous hematologic, cardiac, hepatic, and inflammatory markers. CONCLUSIONS: A prospective cohort of predominantly elderly hospitalized patients with COVID-19-related pneumonia were recovered to room air quicker than age- and comorbidity-matched controls, with trending or significant improvements in delirium, radiographs, and biomarkers, and no significant acute toxicity. Low-dose, whole-lung radiation for patients with COVID-19-related pneumonia appears safe and may be an effective immunomodulatory treatment. Larger prospective randomized trials are needed to define the efficacy of LD-RT for COVID-19.

The Effect of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Mitigation Strategies on Seasonal Respiratory Viruses: A Tale of 2 Large Metropolitan Centers in the United States.

To assess the impact of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic on seasonal respiratory viruses, absolute case counts and viral reproductive rates from 2019-2020 were compared against previous seasons. Our findings suggest that the public health measures implemented to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission significantly reduced the transmission of other respiratory viruses.

Quantification of occupational and community risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity among healthcare workers in a large U.S. healthcare system.

BACKGROUND: Quantifying occupational risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers can inform efforts to improve healthcare worker and patient safety and reduce transmission. This study aimed to quantify demographic, occupational, and community risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity among healthcare workers in a large metropolitan healthcare system. METHODS: We analyzed data from a cross-sectional survey conducted from April through June of 2020 linking risk factors for occupational and community exposure to COVID-19 with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. A multivariable logistic regression model was fit to quantify risk factors for infection. Participants were employees and medical staff members who elected to participate in SARS-CoV-2 serology testing offered to all healthcare workers as part of a quality initiative, and who completed a survey on exposure to COVID-19 and use of personal protective equipment. Exposures of interest included known demographic risk factors for COVID-19, residential zip code incidence of COVID-19, occupational exposure to PCR test-positive healthcare workers or patients, and use of personal protective equipment. The primary outcome of interest was SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. RESULTS: SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity was estimated to be 5.7% (95% CI: 5.2%-6.1%) among 10,275 healthcare workers. Community contact with a person known or suspected to have COVID-19 (aOR=1.9, 95% CI:1.4-2.5) and zip code level COVID-19 incidence (aOR: 1.4, 95% CI: 1.0-2.0) increased the odds of infection. Black individuals were at high risk (aOR=2.0, 95% CI:1.6-2.4). Overall, occupational risk factors accounted for 27% (95% CI: 25%-30%) of the risk among healthcare workers and included contact with a PCR test-positive healthcare worker (aOR=1.2, 95% CI:1.0-1.6). CONCLUSIONS: Community risk factors, including contact with a COVID-19 positive individual and residential COVID-19 incidence, are more strongly associated with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity among healthcare workers than exposure in the workplace.

Low-dose whole-lung radiation for COVID-19 pneumonia: Planned day 7 interim analysis of a registered clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Individuals of advanced age with comorbidities face a higher risk of death from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), especially once they are ventilator-dependent. Respiratory decline in patients with COVID-19 is precipitated by a lung-mediated aberrant immune cytokine storm. Low-dose lung radiation was used to treat pneumonia in the pre-antibiotic era. Radiation immunomodulatory effects may improve outcomes for select patients with COVID-19. METHODS: A single-institution trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of single-fraction, low-dose whole-lung radiation for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia is being performed for the first time. This report describes outcomes of a planned day 7 interim analysis. Eligible patients were hospitalized, had radiographic consolidation, required supplemental oxygen, and were clinically deteriorating. RESULTS: Of 9 patients screened, 5 were treated with whole-lung radiation on April 24 until April 28 2020, and they were followed for a minimum of 7 days. The median age was 90 years (range, 64-94 years), and 4 were nursing home residents with multiple comorbidities. Within 24 hours of radiation, 3 patients (60%) were weaned from supplemental oxygen to ambient air, 4 (80%) exhibited radiographic improvement, and the median Glasgow Coma Scale score improved from 10 to 14. A fourth patient (80% overall recovery) was weaned from oxygen at hour 96. The mean time to clinical recovery was 35 hours. There were no acute toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: In a pilot trial of 5 oxygen-dependent elderly patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, low-dose whole-lung radiation led to rapid improvements in clinical status, encephalopathy, and radiographic consolidation without acute toxicity. Low-dose whole-lung radiation appears to be safe, shows early promise of efficacy, and warrants further study. LAY SUMMARY: Researchers at Emory University report preliminary safety outcomes for patients treated with low-dose lung irradiation for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia. Five residents of nursing or group homes were hospitalized after testing positive for COVID-19. Each had pneumonia visible on a chest x-ray, required supplemental oxygen, and experienced a clinical decline in mental status or in work of breathing or a prolonged or escalating supplemental oxygen requirement. A single treatment of low-dose (1.5-Gy) radiation to both lungs was delivered over the course of 10 to 15 minutes. There was no acute toxicity attributable to radiation therapy. Within 24 hours, 4 patients had rapidly improved breathing, and they recovered to room air at an average of 1.5 days (range, 3-96 hours). Three were discharged at a mean time of 12 days, and 1 was preparing for discharge. Blood tests and repeat imaging confirm that low-dose whole-lung radiation treatment appears safe for COVID-19 pneumonia. Further trials are warranted.

Obstetricians on the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Front Lines and the Confusing World of Personal Protective Equipment.

As health care systems struggle to maintain adequate supplies of personal protective equipment, there is confusion and anxiety among obstetricians and others about how to best protect themselves, their coworkers, and their patients. Although use of personal protective equipment is a critical strategy to protect health care personnel from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), other strategies also need to be implemented on labor and delivery units to reduce the risk of health care-associated transmission, including screening of all pregnant women who present for care (case identification), placing a mask on and rapidly isolating ill pregnant women, and minimizing the number of personnel who enter the room of an ill patient (physical distancing). Although the mechanism of transmission of COVID-19 is not known with certainty, current evidence suggests that COVID-19 is transmitted primarily through respiratory droplets. Therefore, strict adherence to hand hygiene and consistent use of recommended personal protective equipment are cornerstones for reducing transmission. In addition, it is critical that health care professionals receive training on and practice correct donning (putting on) and doffing (removing) of personal protective equipment and avoid touching their faces as well as their facial protection to minimize self-contamination.

Comparison of Rates of Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections in Patients With 1 vs 2 Central Venous Catheters.

Importance: National Healthcare Safety Network methods for central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) surveillance do not account for potential additive risk for CLABSI associated with use of 2 central venous catheters (CVCs) at the same time (concurrent CVCs); facilities that serve patients requiring high acuity care with medically indicated concurrent CVC use likely disproportionally incur Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services payment penalties for higher CLABSI rates. Objective: To quantify the risk for CLABSI associated with concurrent use of a second CVC. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included adult patients with 2 or more days with a CVC at 4 geographically separated general acute care hospitals in the Atlanta, Georgia, area that varied in size from 110 to 580 beds, from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2017. Variables included clinical conditions, central line-days, and concurrent CVC use. Patients were propensity score-matched for likelihood of concurrence (limited to 2 CVCs), and conditional logistic regression modeling was performed to estimate the risk of CLABSI associated with concurrence. Episodes of CVC were categorized as low or high risk and single vs concurrent use to evaluate time to CLABSI with Cox proportional hazards regression models. Data were analyzed from January to June 2019. Exposures: Two CVCs present at the same time. Main Outcomes and Measures: Hospitalizations in which a patient developed a CLABSI, allowing estimation of patient risk for CLABSI and daily hazard for a CVC episode ending in CLABSI. Results: Among a total of 50 254 patients (median [interquartile range] age, 59 [45-69] years; 26 661 [53.1%] women), 64 575 CVCs were used and 647 CLABSIs were recorded. Concurrent CVC use was recorded in 6877 patients (13.7%); the most frequent indications for concurrent CVC use were nutrition (554 patients [14.1%]) or hemodialysis (1706 patients [43.4%]). In the propensity score-matched cohort, 74 of 3932 patients with concurrent CVC use (1.9%) developed CLABSI, compared with 81 of 7864 patients with single CVC use (1.0%). Having 2 CVCs for longer than two-thirds of a patient's CVC use duration was associated with increased likelihood of developing a CLABSI, adjusting for central line-days and comorbidities (adjusted risk ratio, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.10-2.33; P = .001). In survival analysis adjusting for sex, receipt of chemotherapy or total parenteral nutrition, and facility, compared with a single CVC, the daily hazard for 2 low-risk CVCs was 1.78 (95% CI, 1.35-2.34; P < .001), while the daily hazard for 1 low-risk and 1 high-risk CVC was 1.80 (95% CI, 1.42-2.28; P < .001), and the daily hazard for 2 high-risk CVCs was 1.78 (95% CI, 1.14-2.77; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that concurrent CVC use is associated with nearly 2-fold the risk of CLABSI compared with use of a single low-risk CVC. Performance metrics for CLABSI should change to account for variations of this intrinsic patient risk among facilities to reduce biased comparisons and resultant penalties applied to facilities that are caring for more patients with medically indicated concurrent CVC use.

Impact of multiple concurrent central lines on central-line-associated bloodstream infection rates.

BACKGROUND: The current methodology for calculating central-line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) rates, used for pay-for-performance measures, does not account for multiple concurrent central lines. OBJECTIVE: To compare CLABSI rates using standard National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) denominators to rates accounting for multiple concurrent central lines. DESIGN: Descriptive analysis and retrospective cohort analysis. METHODS: We identified all adult patients with central lines at 2 academic medical centers over an 18-month period. CLABSI rates were calculated for intensive care units (ICUs) and non-ICUs using the standard NHSN methodology and denominator (a patient could only have 1 central-line day for a given patient day) and a modified denominator (number of central lines in 1 patient in 1 day count as number of line days). We also compared characteristics of patients with and without multiple concurrent central lines. RESULTS: Among 18,521 hospital admissions, there were 156,574 central-line days and 239 CLABSIs (ICU, 105; non-ICU, 134). Our modified denominator reduced CLABSI rates by 25% in ICUs (1.95 vs 1.47 per 1,000 line days) and 6% (1.30 vs 1.22 per 1,000 line days) in non-ICUs. Patients with multiple concurrent central lines were more likely to be in an ICU, to have a longer admission, to have a dialysis catheter, and to have a CLABSI. CONCLUSIONS: Using the number of central lines as the denominator decreased CLABSI rates in ICUs by 25%. The presence of multiple concurrent central lines may be a marker of severity of illness. The risk of CLABSI per lumen of a central line is similar in ICUs compared to wards.

Ebola or Not? Evaluating the Ill Traveler From Ebola-Affected Countries in West Africa.

Background. The 2014-2015 Ebola epidemic in West Africa had global impact beyond the primarily affected countries of Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone. Other countries, including the United States, encountered numerous patients who arrived from highly affected countries with fever or other signs or symptoms consistent with Ebola virus disease (EVD). Methods. We describe our experience evaluating 25 travelers who met the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention case definition for a person under investigation (PUI) for EVD from July 20, 2014 to January 28, 2015. All patients were triaged and evaluated under the guidance of institutional protocols to the emergency department, outpatient tropical medicine clinic, or Emory's Ebola treatment unit. Strict attention to infection control and early involvement of public health authorities guided the safe evaluation of these patients. Results. None were diagnosed with EVD. Respiratory illnesses were common, and 8 (32%) PUI were confirmed to have influenza. Four patients (16%) were diagnosed with potentially life-threatening infections or conditions, including 3 with Plasmodium falciparum malaria and 1 with diabetic ketoacidosis. Conclusions. In addition to preparing for potential patients with EVD, Ebola assessment centers should consider other life-threatening conditions requiring urgent treatment, and travelers to affected countries should be strongly advised to seek pretravel counseling. Furthermore, attention to infection control in all aspects of PUI evaluation is paramount and has presented unique challenges. Lessons learned from our evaluation of potential patients with EVD can help inform preparations for future outbreaks of highly pathogenic communicable diseases.

High Risk of Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis and Death After Valve Replacement Operations in Dialysis Patients.

BACKGROUND: Despite a high burden of dialysis access-related bloodstream infections and an increasing incidence of endocarditis, few data are available addressing the risk of prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) in the dialysis population. We sought to assess the risk of PVE and death after valve replacement operations in patients receiving long-term dialysis. METHODS: A matched retrospective cohort study was conducted comprising patients admitted for valve replacement operations at two university hospitals. Patients without dialysis were matched 1:1 with dialysis patients by valve(s) replaced, year of operation, and presence of active endocarditis as the indication for valve replacement. Patient characteristics were compared using χ(2) and t tests. The development of PVE was defined by use of the modified Duke criteria and analyzed with Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-eight patients were included, with 139 in either cohort. The PVE risk per year of follow-up was 0.14 in the dialysis cohort and 0.03 in the nondialysis cohort. Dialysis remained a risk factor (adjusted hazard ratio 5.61 [95% confidence interval, 2.17 to 14.5], p = 0.0004) after age and race were controlled for. The 5-year survival rate was lower after valve replacement operation in the dialysis group (25.4%) than in the nondialysis group (75.9%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of PVE and death after valve replacement operations in dialysis patients is substantial and significantly higher than in patients without dialysis. These findings highlight the importance of a careful preoperative risk-benefit assessment and underscore the need to prevent hemodialysis-related bloodstream infections.

Loving-Kindness Meditation to Target Affect in Mood Disorders: A Proof-of-Concept Study.

Conventional treatments for mood disorders primarily focus on reducing negative affect, but little on enhancing positive affect. Loving-kindness meditation (LKM) is a traditional meditation practice directly oriented toward enhancing unconditional and positive emotional states of kindness towards oneself and others. We report here two independent and uncontrolled studies carried out at different centers, one in Boston, USA (n = 10), and one in Frankfurt, Germany (n = 8), to examine the potential therapeutic utility of a brief LKM group intervention for symptoms of dysthymia and depression. Results at both centers suggest that LKM was associated with large-sized effects on self-reported symptoms of depression (d = 3.33 and 1.90), negative affect (d = 1.98 and 0.92), and positive affect (d = 1.63 and 0.94). Large effects were also found for clinician-reported changes in depression, rumination and specific positive emotions, and moderate effects for changes in adaptive emotion regulation strategies. The qualitative data analyses provide additional support for the potential clinical utility of the intervention. This proof-of-concept evaluation of LKM as a clinical strategy warrants further investigation.

Comparison of a silver-coated needleless connector and a standard needleless connector for the prevention of central line-associated bloodstream infections.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of a novel, silver-coated needleless connectors (NCs) on central-line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) rates compared with a mechanically identical NCs without a silver coating. DESIGN: Prospective longitudinal observation study SETTING Two 500-bed university hospitals PATIENTS: All hospitalized adults from November 2009 to June 2011 with non-hemodialysis central lines INTERVENTIONS: Hospital A started with silver-coated NCs and switched to standard NCs in September 2010; hospital B started with standard NCs and switched to silver-coated NCs. The primary outcome was the difference revealed by Poisson multivariate regression in CLABSI rate using standard Centers for Disease Control and Prevention surveillance definitions. The secondary outcome was a comparison of organism-specific CLABSI rates by NC type. RESULTS: Among 15,845 hospital admissions, 140,186 central-line days and 221 CLABSIs were recorded during the study period. In a multivariate model, the CLABSI rate per 1,000 central-line days was lower with silver-coated NCs than with standard NCs (1.21 vs 1.79; incidence rate ratio=0.68 [95% CI: 0.52-0.89], P=.005). A lower CLABSI rate per 1,000 central-line days for the silver-coated NCs versus the standard NCs was observed with S. aureus (0.11 vs 0.30, P=.02), enterococci (0.10 vs 0.27, P=.03), and Gram-negative organisms (0.28 vs 0.63, P=.003) but not with coagulase-negative staphylococci (0.31 vs 0.36) or Candida spp. (0.42 vs 0.40). CONCLUSIONS: The use of silver-coated NCs decreased the CLABSI rate by 32%. CLABSI reduction efforts should include efforts to minimize contamination of NCs.

Microbial biofilms on needleless connectors for central venous catheters: comparison of standard and silver-coated devices collected from patients in an acute care hospital.

Microorganisms may colonize needleless connectors (NCs) on intravascular catheters, forming biofilms and predisposing patients to catheter-associated infection (CAI). Standard and silver-coated NCs were collected from catheterized intensive care unit patients to characterize biofilm formation using culture-dependent and culture-independent methods and to investigate the associations between NC usage and biofilm characteristics. Viable microorganisms were detected by plate counts from 46% of standard NCs and 59% of silver-coated NCs (P=0.11). There were no significant associations (P>0.05, chi-square test) between catheter type, side of catheter placement, number of catheter lumens, site of catheter placement, or NC placement duration and positive NC findings. There was an association (P=0.04, chi-square test) between infusion type and positive findings for standard NCs. Viable microorganisms exhibiting intracellular esterase activity were detected on >90% of both NC types (P=0.751), suggesting that a large percentage of organisms were not culturable using the conditions provided in this study. Amplification of the 16S rRNA gene from selected NCs provided a substantially larger number of operational taxonomic units per NC than did plate counts (26 to 43 versus 1 to 4 operational taxonomic units/NC, respectively), suggesting that culture-dependent methods may substantially underestimate microbial diversity on NCs. NC bacterial communities were clustered by patient and venous access type and may reflect the composition of the patient's local microbiome but also may contain organisms from the health care environment. NCs provide a portal of entry for a wide diversity of opportunistic pathogens to colonize the catheter lumen, forming a biofilm and increasing the potential for CAI, highlighting the importance of catheter maintenance practices to reduce microbial contamination.

Electronic documentation of central venous catheter-days: validation is essential.

BACKGROUND: Measurement of central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) rates outside of intensive care units is challenged by the difficulty in reliably determining central venous catheter (CVC) use. The National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) allows for use of electronic data for determination of CVC-days, but validation of electronic data has not been studied systematically. OBJECTIVE: To design and validate a process to reliably measure CVC-days outside of the intensive care units that leverages electronic documentation. METHODS: Thirty-four inpatient wards at 2 academic hospitals using a common electronic platform for nursing documentation were studied. Electronic queries were created to capture patient and CVC information, and tools and processes for tracking and reporting errors in documentation were developed. Strategies to validate electronic data included comparisons with manual CVC-day determinations and automated data validation using customized tools. Interventions included redesign of documentation interface, real-time audit with feedback of errors, and education. The primary outcome was patient-level total error rate in electronic CVC-day measurement compared with manually counted CVC-days. RESULTS: At baseline, there were a mean (± standard deviation) of [Formula: see text] electronic CVC-day errors (omission and commission errors summed and counted equally) per manually counted CVC-day. After several process improvement cycles over 7 months, the error rate decreased to <0.05 errors per CVC-day and remained at or below this level for 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline electronic CVC-day counts had a high error rate. Stepwise interventions reduced errors to consistently low levels. Validation of electronic calculation of CVC-days is essential to ensure accuracy, particularly if these data will be used for interinstitutional comparison.