Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has affected healthcare systems worldwide, but the impact on infection prevention and control (IPC) programs has not been fully evaluated. We assessed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on IPC consultation requests. Methods: The University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics comprises an 811-bed hospital that admits >36,000 patients yearly and >200 outpatient clinics. Questions about IPC can be addressed to the Program of Hospital Epidemiology via e-mail, in person, or through our phone line. We routinely record date and time, call source, reason for the call, and estimated time to resolve questions for all phone line requests. We defined calls during 2018–2019 as the pre–COVID-19 period and calls from January to December 2020 as the COVID-19 period. Results: In total, 6,564 calls were recorded from 2018 to 2020. In the pre–COVID-19 period (2018–2019), we received a median of 71 calls per month (range, 50–119). The most frequent call sources were inpatient units (n = 902; 50%), department of public health (n = 357; 20%), laboratory (n = 171; 9%), and outpatient clinics (n = 120; 7%) (Figure 1). The most common call topics were isolation and precautions (n = 606; 42%), outside institutions requests (n = 324; 22%), environmental and construction (n = 148; 10%), and infection exposures (n = 149; 10%). The most frequent infection-related calls were about tuberculosis (17%), gram-negative organisms (14%), and influenza (9%). During the COVID-19 period, the median monthly call volume increased 500% to 368 per month (range, 149–829). Most (83%) were COVID-19 related. The median monthly number of COVID-19 calls was 302 (range, 45–674). The median monthly number of non–COVID-19 calls decreased to 56 (range, 36–155). The most frequent call sources were inpatient units (57%), outpatient clinics (16%), and the department of public health (5%). Most calls concerned isolation and precautions (50%) and COVID-19 testing (20%). The mean time required to respond to each question was 10 minutes (range, 2–720). The biggest surges in calls during the COVID-19 period were at the beginning of the pandemic (March 2020) and during the hospital peak COVID-19 census (November 2020). Conclusions: In addition to supporting a proactive COVID-19 response, our IPC program experienced a 500% increase in consultation requests. Planning for future bioemergencies should include creative strategies to provide additional resources to increase response capacity within IPC programs.

Funding: No

Disclosures: None

Figure 1.

Background: The impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on healthcare-associated infection (HAI) is not yet known. Diversion of resources from traditional HAI surveillance and prevention efforts toward institutional COVID-19 response, along with decrease in patient contact due to fear or required quarantine or isolation, may have increased HAI rates. In contrast, increased compliance with hand hygiene and personal protective equipment may have decreased HAI rates. Methods: We sought to determine the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare-associated central-line–associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) and catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI). CLABSI and CAUTI rates and standardized infection ratios (SIRs) reported to the NHSN from the first quarter of 2015 to the fourth quarter of 2020 were obtained for the entire facility and for the medical intensive care unit (MICU), which was converted during the pandemic to an intensive care unit solely for critically ill patients with COVID-19. Changes in CLABSI and CAUTI rates and SIRs before the pandemic (Q1 2015 to Q4 2019) and during the pandemic (Q1 2020 to Q4 2020) were assessed using an independent-sample t test. Results: The CLABSI rate was unchanged, with a mean (SD) of 0.64 (±0.34) CLABSIs per 1,000 central-line days before the pandemic and 0.72 (±0.22) during the pandemic (P = .62) (Figure 1). The SIR remained stable at 0.54 (±0.29) before and 0.96 (±0.59) during the COVID-19 pandemic (P = .25). However, CLABSI rate in MICU increased significantly from 0.92 (±1.00) to 2.75 (±1.00) (p < 0.01), along with SIR from 0.81 ± 0.89 to 2.53 ± 1.07 (p < 0.01) (Figure 1). CAUTI rate was unchanged with 1.17 ± 0.38 CAUTI per 1000 catheter days per quarter before, and 1.04 ± 0.87 during COVID-19 pandemic (p = 0.64). CAUTI SIR remained stable at 0.82 ± 0.31 before and 0.83 ± 0.86 during COVID-19 pandemic (p = 0.96). CAUTI rate in MICU was 0.78 ± 1.20 before and 2.17 ± 3.24 after COVID-19 pandemic (p = 0.45) (Figure 2). Conclusions: Although our institutional CLABSI and CAUTI rates and SIRs remained unchanged, our medical intensive care unit, which housed our critically ill patients with COVID-19, experienced significant increases in CLABSI rate and SIR. This finding is likely multifactorial in the setting of overextended nursing staff, use of prone position, and challenges of infection prevention efforts under isolation precautions.

Funding: No

Disclosures: None

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Background: As the world grapples with the pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), it is important to consider the full impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on healthcare delivery. Evidence from outbreaks of novel H1N1 and Ebola indicates that response to these types of outbreaks requires extraordinary resources, which are diverted from routine infection prevention and control activities. However, little is known about the impact of COVID-19 on adherence to patient safety protocols in hospitals, including infection prevention and control activities. We have described the reports of acute-care registered nurses (RNs) in adhering to patient safety protocols while delivering care to COVID-19 patients. Methods: In October 2020, we conducted a cross-sectional electronic survey of all active RNs in the state of New Jersey who provided direct patient care in a New Jersey hospital in an emergency or adult inpatient unit during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: More than 3,027 RNs participated in the survey, for a 15% response rate based on number of eligible RNs. Moreover, 15% of respondents reported that they tested positive for COVID-19 during the initial peak of COVID-19 in New Jersey (March–June 2020). Most RNs reported that the number of patients they were assigned during the first peak of the pandemic affected their ability to adhere to patient safety protocols (eg, deep-vein thrombosis screening, central-line bundles, pressure ulcer prevention). In open-ended responses, they shared that being understaffed, the extra time it took for downing and doffing of PPE, the lack of access to ancillary staff (ie nursing assistants, runners), and the need to cluster care affected the quality of care. A nurse working in the intensive care unit (ICU) lamented, “We were sometimes given 4–5 ICU patients who were very sick and required a lot of care. Shortcuts had to be taken to prioritize the most important needs. Sometimes IVs remained longer than desired. Foleys remained in longer. To avoid PPE shortages, we didn’t go into the rooms nearly as much as we normally would, [and] things got missed.” Feelings of being overwhelmed and helpless permeated the nurses’ comments. Conclusions: When caring for COVID-19 patients, frontline nurses struggled with adherence to necessary patient safety protocols, which ultimately disrupted care delivery. Future research should quantify the extent to which the COVID-19 pandemic affected care delivery, including adherence to patient safety protocols among frontline providers.

Funding: No

Disclosures: None

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine is an important intervention to control the COVID-19 pandemic. As the most trusted profession integral to providing care to patients across all care settings, nurses play a critical role in educating patients regarding the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. However, little is known about the readiness of registered nurses (RNs) to receive the vaccine. Methods: In October 2020, prior to FDA approval of vaccines, we conducted a cross-sectional electronic survey of all active registered nurses in the state of New Jersey. The eligibility criteria included providing direct patient care in a New Jersey hospital in an emergency or an adult inpatient unit during the emergence of COVID-19 (March 2020). Results: In total, 3,027 RNs completed the survey (15% response rate). When asked whether they plan to get vaccinated, 27% of RNs responded yes, 30% responded no, and 43% were undecided. Among those RNs who reported that they were planning to get vaccinated, their main reasons for their willingness to receive the vaccine included (1) wanting to protect themselves and their families (95%), (2) wanting to protect the community at large (76%), wanting to protect their patients (75%), the belief that life won’t get back to normal until most people are vaccinated (72%), and the belief that getting vaccinated is the best way to avoid getting seriously ill from COVID-19 (67%). The main reasons reported for not planning to or being undecided about getting vaccinated included the belief that the vaccine will likely be developed too quickly to be safe (81%) and concern about the side effects from the vaccine (74%). RNs also reported being in a low-risk group for becoming seriously ill (12%) and having had COVID-19 (8%) as reasons for planning not to get vaccinated. In open-ended responses, participants also discussed several additional issues driving vaccine hesitancy: their lack of trust in the political process, planning to become pregnant or currently pregnant or breastfeeding, questions about effectiveness of the vaccine and long-term side effects, and the need for more information before making a decision. Conclusions: This cross-sectional study of all acute-care RNs in the State of New Jersey was conducted prior to the FDA approval of COVID-19 vaccines. The results outline factors driving vaccine hesitancy among RNs. Although vaccine efficacy data and approval by the FDA may have alleviated some of these fears, immunization programs for healthcare workers and the public should focus on dispelling myths about vaccine development and side effects.

Funding: No

Disclosures: None

Background: Research analyzing COVID-19 symptom screening has primarily focused on adult patients. In efforts to safely reopen schools, symptom screeners are being widely utilized. However, pediatric-specific outpatient data on which symptom combinations best identify children with COVID-19 are lacking. Such data could refine school symptom screening by improving screener sensitivity and specificity. In this study, we assessed the frequency of symptoms and symptom combinations in children tested for SARS-CoV-2 in outpatient settings. We aim to contribute to the optimization of pediatric COVID-19 screening questionnaires, to ultimately minimize both COVID-19 transmission in schools and missed school days. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of outpatient symptoms screens, SARS-CoV-2 test results, and demographics of children (≤18 years) tested for SARS-CoV-2 between March 30 and November 30, 2020, at 3 UCSF-affiliated COVID-19 outpatient screening clinics in northern California. Those with incomplete symptom screens, >7 days between symptom documentation and test, and invalid test results were excluded. Results: Of 473 children tested at 1 site, 21 children had positive SARs-CoV-2 results and 452 children had negative results (4.4% positivity rate). Moreover, 85.7% of SARS-CoV-2–positive children had a known exposure to COVID-19 (Table 1). Of SARS-CoV-2–positive children, 61.9% had >1 symptom. Also, 52.4% of SARS-CoV-2–positive children had at least 1 symptom (fever, cough, or loss of taste or smell) versus 62.8% of SARS-CoV-2–negative children (Table 2). Runny nose or nasal congestion was the most frequently reported symptom in the SARS-CoV-2–positive group (47.6%) as well as the SARS-CoV-2–negative group (58.6%). Also, 14.3% of SARS-CoV-2–positive children had eye redness or discharge versus 3.1% of SARS-CoV-2–negative children. Isolated runny nose presented in 10.8% of SARS-CoV-2–negative versus 9.5% of SARS-CoV-2–positive children. All children with isolated diarrhea (n = 5), isolated headache (n = 3), and isolated rash (n = 2) tested negative. Preliminary symptom data based on 176 children from a second site showed that 9.9% of symptomatic children had a positive test result. Conclusions: Runny nose or nasal congestion was the most frequently reported symptom in all children tested for SARS-CoV-2. However, isolated runny nose or nasal congestion identified 2 cases of COVID-19 in our cohort. Eye redness or discharge may be an important symptom to screen for COVID-19 in children. Further research with a larger number of positive cases is needed to make conclusions about improving efficiency and efficacy of symptom screeners for COVID-19 in children.

Funding: No

Disclosures: None

Table 1.

Table 2.

Background: At our institution, the concern for false-negative nasopharyngeal testing for SARS-CoV-2 at the onset of illness led to a general policy of retesting inpatients at 48 hours. For such patients, 2 negative SARS-CoV-2 PCR test results were required prior to discontinuation of COVID-19 control precautions. To assess the utility of routine repeat testing We analyzed patients presenting to our hospital who initially tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 but were found to be positive on repeated testing. Methods: All inpatients with symptoms concerning for COVID-19 were tested via nasopharyngeal sample for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR on admission. Patients with continued symptoms and no alternative diagnosis were retested 48 hours later. Testing was performed using either the Roche cobas SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assay or the Cepheid Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 test. Between March 17, 2020, and May 10, 2020, we retrospectively analyzed data from patients with false-negative SARS-CoV-2 PCR test results who were subsequently confirmed positive 48 hours later. We evaluated demographic information, days since symptom onset, symptomatology, chest imaging, vital sign trends, and the overall clinical course of each patient. Results: During the study period, 14,683 tests were performed, almost half (n = 7,124) were performed through the ED and in the inpatient setting. Of 2,283 patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, only 19 (0.01%) initially tested negative. Patients with initial false-negative test results presented with symptoms that ranged from fever and dyspnea to fatigue and vomiting. Notably, few patients presented “early” in their disease (median, 6 days; range, 0–10 days). However, patients with initial false-negative PCR test results did seem to have consistent imaging findings, specifically bilateral bibasilar ground glass opacities on chest radiograph or computed tomography scan. Conclusions: Among inpatients with COVID-19, we found a very low rate of initial false-negative SARS-CoV-2 PCR test results, which were not consistently related to premature testing. We also identified common radiographic findings among patients with initially false-negative test results, which could be useful in triaging patients who may merit retesting. Based on these data, we revised our existing clearance criteria to allow for single-test removal of COVID-19 precautions. Evaluating subsequent reduction in unnecessary testing is difficult given changing community prevalence, increased census, and increased opening to elective procedures. However, given the significant percentage of ED and inpatient testing, removal of repeated testing has likely resulted in a reduction of several thousand unnecessary COVID-19 tests monthly.

Funding: No

Disclosures: None

Background: We describe the infection prevention investigation of a cluster of 15 healthcare workers (HCWs) and 7 patients in a single non–COVID-19 unit of an acute-care hospital in September 2020. Methods: The infection prevention team was notified of 13 SARS-CoV-2–positive, symptomatic HCWs in an acute-care non–COVID-19 unit in 1 week (August 30, 2020, to September 3, 2020). In the same week, 2 patients who had been on the unit were diagnosed with nosocomial COVID-19. An epidemiologic investigation identified the exposure period to be between August 19, 2020, and September 3, 2020. The following immediate containment measures were implemented: closing the unit to new admissions, restricting float staff, moving existing patients to private rooms, mandatory masking of patients, and mandatory respirator and eye protection on unit entry for all HCWs. Exposed unit staff were tested immediately and then every 4 days until September 18, 2020. Likewise, exposed patients, including those discharged, were notified and offered testing. Hospital-wide HCW surveillance testing was conducted. Enhanced environmental control measures were conducted, including terminal cleaning and ultraviolet C (UV-C) disinfection of common areas and patient rooms and a thorough investigation of airflow. Detailed staff interviews were performed to identify causes of transmission. Multiple town hall meetings were held for staff education and updates. Results: In total, 108 total patients were deemed exposed: 33 were inpatients and 75 had been discharged. Testing identified 5 additional patient cases among 57 patients who received testing; 51 chose to self-monitor for symptoms. Staff testing identified 2 additional cases. Thus, 15 HCWs and 7 patients were linked in this cluster. The containment measures successfully ended staff transmission as of September 5, 2020. The last patient case was detected on September 10, 2020. Secondary cases were noted in 6 HCW families. We identified staff presenteeism, complacency, and socialization in break rooms and outside work as major causes of transmission. Suboptimal compliance with universal eye protection and hand hygiene (67%) were contributing factors. We determined by contact tracing and temporality that the outbreak could have stemmed from nursing home patient(s) through floating HCWs to staff on the affected unit. Directionality of transmission was from staff to patients in this cluster. Conclusions: Many facets of pandemic fatigue were apparent in this outbreak, namely, inability of HCWs to adhere to changing PPE guidance, presenteeism pressures due to workforce needs, and socialization with peers due to a false sense of security conferred by biweekly surveillance testing. Ongoing PPE education, repeated reinforcement, as well as engagement in staff wellness are crucial to combatting pandemic fatigue, conserving our workforce, and preventing future outbreaks.

Funding: No

Disclosures: None

Background: In November 2020, bamlanivimab received emergency use authorization (EUA) to treat patients with early, mild-to-moderate COVID-19 who are at high risk of progression. Montefiore Medical Center serves an economically underserved community of >1.4 million residents in the Bronx, New York. Montefiore’s antimicrobial stewardship team (AST) developed a multidisciplinary treatment pathway for patients meeting EUA criteria: (1) outpatients and hospital associates and (2) acute-care patients (EDs or inpatient). Methods: The Montefiore AST established a centralized process for screening high-risk COVID-19 patients 7 days a week. Referrals were sent by e-mail from occupational health, primary care practices, specialty practices, emergency departments, and urgent care centers. Patients were screened in real time and were treated in the ED or a newly established infusion center within 24 hours. After infusion, all patients received phone calls from nurses and had an infectious diseases televisit. Demographics, clinical symptoms, subsequent ED visit or hospital admission, and timing from infusion to ED or hospitalization were obtained from the electronic health record. Results: In total, 281 high-risk patients (median age, 62 years; 57% female) received bamlanivimab at the infusion center or in the acute-care setting between December 2, 2020, and January 27, 2021 (Table 1). The number of treated patients increased weekly (Figure 1). Also, 62% were Hispanic or black, and 96% met EUA criteria. Furthermore, 51 (18%) were referred from occupational health, 205 (73%) were referred from the community, and 25 (9%) were inpatients (https://www.fda.gov/media/143605/download). All patients were successfully infused without adverse reactions. In addition, 23 patients (8.2%) were hospitalized and 6 (2.1%) visited EDs within 30 days of treatment. The average number of days between symptom onset and infusion was 4.9. The median age of admitted versus nonadmitted patients was 68 years versus 61.5 years (P = .07). Conclusions: An AST-coordinated bamlanivimab treatment program successfully treated multiple high-risk COVID-19 patients and potentially reduced hospitalizations. However, the effort, personnel, and resources required are significant. Dedicated hospital investment is necessary for maximal success.

Funding: No

Disclosures: None

Table 1.

Figure 1.

Background: Current literature suggests that older age, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus confer a significant increased risk of mortality among patients with COVID-19. The purpose of this study is to further characterize the predictors of mortality in patients with COVID-19 in residents of Flint, Michigan, based on variables such as gender, age, smoking status, health insurance plan, and comorbidities. Methods: Hurley Medical Center, is a 443-bed public, nonprofit, teaching medical center located in Flint, Michigan. In total, 289 consecutive adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection by nasal polymerase chain reaction (PCR), admitted and discharged from our facility from March 2020 through June 2020, were retrospectively analyzed. Results: During the 4-month study period, the overall in-hospital case fatality rate (CFR) was 18% (51 of 289), with highest CFR in the age group aged 60–69 years (36%; P = .06). Nonsurvivors tended to be older with mean age of 67 years (95% CI, 61.6–71.8) versus survivors with mean age of 60 years (95% CI, 57.7–62.4). Highest mortality was seen in patients with Medicare or Medicaid as their sole health plan (39%, P = .59). Men comprised 51% (148 of 289) of the cohort with CFR of 21% versus 14% in females. Females tended to be younger with a higher body mass index (BMI) than their male counterparts (mean age of 58 years, mean BMI of 35 in women vs a mean age of 62 and BMI of 29 in men). A higher proportion of deceased were active smokers (51%; P = .02). CFR was highest in patients with hypertension (92%,; P = .15), followed by diabetes (44%; P = .85), chronic kidney disease (CKD) (31%; P = .10), obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) (28%; P = .25), asthma (22%; P = .64), and coronary artery disease (22%; P = .34). It was lowest in patients with end-stage renal disease (3%; P = .69). Conclusions: Our study suggests trends towards higher mortality with male sex, hypertension and diabetes, along with other comorbidities. Smoking seems to be a strong predictor of mortality in this cohort. Further studies are needed to ascertain the relationship between possible risk factors with COVID-19 mortality in residents of Flint, Michigan. Describing and understanding the potential risk factors is the key to improving outcomes in this population.

Funding: No

Disclosures: None

Background: Fungemia is associated with high rates of morbidity, mortality, and increase in length of hospital stay. Several studies have recognized increased rates of candidemia since the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Patients with candidemia during January through May 2020 were identified through Theradoc. Patient demographics, comorbidities, hospital management, and microbiology were extracted by medical chart review. Patients were divided into cohorts based on COVID-19 status. The Fisher exact and Satterthwaite tests were used for analyses of categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Results: Overall, 31 patients developed candidemia and 12 (38.7%) patients tested SARS-CoV-2 positive. Candida glabrata was the most prevalent causative organism in both groups. On average, COVID-19 patients developed fungemia 12.1 days from admission, compared to 17.8 days in the COVID-19 negative or untested cohort (P = .340). Additionally, COVID-19 patients with a fungemia coinfection were significantly more likely to expire; 10 COVID-19 patients (83.3%) died, compared to 7 (36.8%) in the COVID-19–negative or untested cohort (P = .025). The cohorts did not demonstrate statistically significant differences in terms of demographic, comorbidities, hospital management, or coinfections. Conclusions: The prevalence of fungemia in COVID-19 patients is significantly greater than historically reported figures. Known risk factors for candidemia, such as use of corticosteroid, use of central venous catheters, and prolonged ICU length of stay were higher in the SARS-CoV-2–positive cohort in this period, which likely contributed to increased fungemia rates, as these factors are also more pronounced in those with COVID-19. Patients who developed candidemia in the COVID-19 cohort had poorer outcomes than those who were SARS-CoV-2 negative or were untested. Further investigation should be conducted in larger studies.

Funding: No

Disclosures: None

Table 1.

Background: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) remains a key pathogen in burn patients and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Disruption of skin barrier exposes these individuals to a myriad of infections. Various decolonization approaches, including chlorhexidine baths and intranasal mupirocin, have shown favorable outcomes in preventing MRSA infections in this cohort. Methods: In August 2020, a mupirocin decolonization protocol was implemented in Michigan’s largest trauma-level 1 burn intensive care unit. All patients admitted to the burn unit received daily intranasal mupirocin for the initial 5 days of hospitalization. We compared MRSA bacteremia rates per 1,000 patient days from January–July 2020 to those after August 2020. A hospital-acquired MRSA bacteremia infection was defined as a positive blood culture after hospital day 3. Patient characteristics and hospital course were collected through medical chart review. A 2-tailed t test was used for analysis. Results: We identified 5 cases of hospital-onset MRSA bacteremia and no cases of community-onset MRSA bacteremia. On average, there were 2.6 cases per 1,000 patient days before mupirocin implementation and 1.0 cases per 1,000 patient days after mupirocin implementation (P = .26) (Figure 1). In this patient cohort, the average total body surface area burned was 45.6% (range, 18%–90%), and 60% (n = 3) of patients had sputum culture positive for MRSA prior to developing bacteremia (Table 1). Also, 2 patients (40%) with MRSA bacteremia died. Notably, the patient in the postintervention cohort was admitted in July, prior to implementation. Conclusions: Implementation of a decolonization protocol with intranasal mupirocin in burn-surgery patients markedly decreased the incidence of MRSA bacteremia in this cohort. This is the first study to evaluate the use of mupirocin as a decolonizing agent in burn victims. Continued long-term surveillance is recommended, and this strategy has potential for application to other high-risk cohorts.

Funding: No

Disclosures: None

Figure 1.

Table 1.

Background: Diagnostic stewardship modifies the ordering, performing, and reporting of diagnostic tests to optimize clinical care and infection prevention while conserving healthcare resources. Timely and accurate diagnosis of respiratory virus infections can optimize the use of antibiotics, antivirals, ancillary tests, and inpatient beds. Influenza-like illnesses (ILIs) are frequently caused by viruses. However, before COVID-19, specific antiviral medication was commonly used only for the treatment of influenza virus infections. Methods: Eskenazi Health (EH) had 2 respiratory PCR assays: influenza/RSV ($58.18 per assay) and a 20-pathogen respiratory pathogens panel (RPP) ($129 per assay). An inpatient ILI algorithm was developed and implemented in the electronic health record (EHR) in October 2018 to guide the selection of the appropriate assay (Figure 1). Ambulatory testing defaulted to the influenza/RSV assay. Prescribers retained the ability to override recommendations. We performed a retrospective chart review of all orders for RPP and influenza/RSV assays before implementation of the ILI algorithm (October 1, 2017, to September 30, 2018) and after implementation (October 1, 2018, to September 30, 2019). The primary end point was the number of RPP assays ordered. The secondary end point was the appropriateness of RPP assays ordered (ie, met ≥1 criteria) and number of influenza/RSVs assays ordered with virus detected. Results: Before the implementation of the intervention, 1,882 orders were reviewed. After implementation 1,621 orders were reviewed. All influenza/RSV and RPP assays were included if they were ordered between October 1, 2017, and September 30, 2019, at EH. There were no exclusion criteria. After implementation, RPP assays decreased ~40% (Table 1), with associated cost savings of $35,368.68 (22.6% of total assay costs; $163,742.88 before implementation and $128,374.20 after implementation). Although some of this reduction could be attributed to the lower number of overall assays ordered, the 40% reduction in RPP assays exceeded the 14% decrease in overall orders, demonstrating improvement in utilization of RPP assays. A corresponding increase in influenza/RSV assay orders was not observed; both groups had similar total influenza/RSV orders. Both groups also had similar percentages of viruses detected with influenza/RSV and RPP (33% before vs 31% after). After implementation, 1,522 (94%) of 1,621 orders followed the recommendations of the ILI algorithm (Table 2). Several prescribers ordered influenza/RSV despite the patient meeting criteria for RPP assay; of these 26 assays, 4 (15%) resulted in virus detection. Of the 73 instances in which prescribers bypassed recommendations for the influenza/RSV assay and ordered an RPP assay, 14 (19%) of the assays resulted in virus detection; only 1 of 14 was a virus that would have been detected by the influenza/RSV. We were unable to identify any trends that would assist in developing additional order questions to capture these patients. Conclusions: Implementation of the ILI algorithm was associated with high adherence, improvement in the appropriateness of ordering, and significant cost savings.

Funding: No

Disclosures: None

Figure 1.

Table 1.

Table 2.

Background: Over the past decade, the CLSI has updated susceptibility break points for several antimicrobial agents. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of these changes against gram-negative bacteria at our academic medical center. Methods: In this retrospective, IRB-approved study, we collected consecutive, nonduplicate clinical isolates of Enterobacter cloacae, Escherichia coli, Klebsiella aerogenes, K. oxytoca, K. pneumoniae, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa for the past decade (2010–2019) at our academic medical center and 3 adult ICUs. Susceptibility testing was performed using the BD Phoenix automated system. For these isolates, susceptibilities for 7 β-lactams (aztreonam, ceftriaxone, ceftazidime, cefepime, piperacillin/tazobactam, ertapenem, and meropenem) and 2 fluoroquinolones (levofloxacin, ciprofloxacin) were calculated based upon CLSI break points in 2010 and current CLSI break points in 2020. Any change >5% in susceptibility was deemed significant for this analysis. Results: In 17.5% of Enterobacteriales isolates tested, at least 1 antimicrobial demonstrated significant decline. Ertapenem was the most commonly affected antimicrobial (45% of the isolates) followed by ceftriaxone (35%) and cefepime (25%). Susceptibilities of aztreonam, ceftazidime, and meropenem were not affected for any of the Enterobacteriales. The most common organism demonstrating a significant impact on change in susceptibility among the Enterobacteriales was E. cloacae (41.7% of the time) followed by E. aerogenes (20.8%), K. oxytoca (12.5%), K. pneumoniae (8.3%) and E. coli (4.2%). Most of the impact was observed hospital-wide (33.3%), followed closely by the MICU (28.6%), the NSICU (23.8%) and the CVICU (14.3%). For P. aeruginosa, the impact of the antimicrobial break-point changes on susceptibility was more pronounced than the Enterobacteriales. Overall, 93.8% of the time there was a significant decline in antimicrobial susceptibility. Each antimicrobial (ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, meropenem, and piperacillin/tazobactam) demonstrated a significant decline in susceptibility hospital-wide and in each ICU except for the susceptibility of meropenem in the NSICU. Conclusions: Changes in break points had a significant impact on the susceptibility of all antimicrobials for P. aeruginosa at our institution, both hospital-wide and in the adult ICUs. Although the impact was less for the Enterobacteriales, ertapenem, ceftriaxone, and cefepime demonstrated significant susceptibility changes, especially with E. cloacae. Understanding and evaluating the impact of the break-point changes may lead to changes in empiric therapy in other institutions.

Funding: No

Disclosures: None

Background: Tracheal aspirate bacterial cultures are routinely collected in mechanically ventilated children for the evaluation of ventilator-associated infections (VAIs). However, frequent bacterial colonization of endotracheal and tracheostomy tubes contribute to the marginal performance characteristics of the test for diagnosing VAI. Published literature characterizing drivers of culture collection and the predictive value of positive cultures are limited. Methods: This single-center, retrospective cohort study included children admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit who were receiving mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours and had 1 or more semiquantitative tracheal aspirate cultures collected between September 1, 2019, and August 31, 2020. Indications for culture collection were determined through medical record review and included fever, hypothermia, tracheal secretion changes, radiographic pneumonia, increased oxygen requirement, and/or increased positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). A positive culture was defined as moderate or heavy growth of a noncommensal bacterial organism. A purulent Gram stain was defined as detection of moderate or many white blood cells. Diagnosis of VAI was based on treating-clinician documentation and was ascertained through medical record review. Logistic regression accounting for clustering by patient was performed to estimate the association between indications for culture collection and (1) culture positivity, (2) purulent Gram stain, and (3) diagnosis of VAI. Results: In total, 625 tracheal aspirate cultures were performed in 261 unique patients. Common indications for culture collection included isolated fever or hypothermia (n = 124, 20%), fever with an increase in oxygen requirement or PEEP (n = 71, 11%), isolated increase in oxygen requirement or PEEP (n = 67, 11%), or isolated secretion change (n = 54, 9%) (Figure 1). Overall, 230 cultures (37%) were positive and 218 (35%) Gram stains were purulent. There were no associations between culture indications and a positive culture. Presence of isolated fever was negatively associated with a purulent Gram stain (odds ratio [OR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30–0.81; P = .005); otherwise, there were no associations between indication and purulent Gram stain. Finally, in a multivariable model, odds of VAI diagnosis increased with both the number of indications for culture collection and purulent Gram stain, but not with positive culture (Figure 2). Conclusions: Number and type of clinical signs were not associated with tracheal aspirate culture positivity or purulence on Gram stain, but they were associated with a clinical diagnosis of VAI. These findings suggest that positive tracheal aspirate cultures may not aid clinicians in the diagnosis of VAI, and they highlight the opportunity for improved diagnostic stewardship.

Funding: No

Disclosures: None

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Background: The use of the automated system for identification and susceptibility tests can improve antimicrobial stewardship. The reduction in the time of identification of the pathogen and the correct dose of antibiotic are factors that contribute significantly to institutional programs and patient outcomes. Objective: We identified and evaluated the susceptibility tests of microorganisms for common pathogens through antibiograms that accounted for the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC), in a tertiary-care public hospital in Brazil. Methods: This retrospective, cross-sectional study was performed to identify microbiologic profiles after the implementation of a VITEK 2 system at a tertiary-care public hospital in Curitiba, Brazil. Based on data from the medical records, patients with positive cultures of clinical samples from August to December 2017 were included in this study. The analysis included culture results, susceptibility profiles, and MICs of 5 antibiotics: amikacin, cefepime, ciprofloxacin, meropenem and vancomycin. Results: In total, 545 antibiograms were evaluated using VITEK 2. The following microorganisms were isolated: 345 gram-negative bacilli (63.3%), 187 gram- positive cocci (34.3%), 9 unidentified microorganisms (1.7%), and 4 yeasts (0.7%). Among the analyzed antibiograms, amikacin was tested in 371 isolates (68.1%), with an MIC of 2 mg/L being the most prevalent value, with a frequency of 224 results (41.1%). Cefepime was tested in 319 isolates (58.5%), with an MIC of 1 mg/L being the most prevalent, with a frequency of 177 results (32.5%). Ciprofloxacin was tested in 470 isolates (86.2%), with an MIC of 0.25 mg/L being the most prevalent value, with frequency of 189 results (34.7%). Meropenem was tested in 318 isolates (58.3%), with an MIC of 0.25 mg/L being the most prevalent value, with a frequency of 223 results (40.9%). Vancomycin was tested in 157 isolates (28.8%), with an MIC of 1 mg/L being the most prevalent value, with frequency of 87 results (16%). Conclusions: When analyzing the most frequently isolated microorganisms and their predominant sensitivity profiles in our institution, amikacin proved to be a good therapeutic option, considering the epidemiological profile, as gram-negative bacilli showed greater sensitivity. Furthermore, VITEK 2 systems provided early access to appropriate antimicrobial therapy for patients, which is a known factor for reducing bacterial resistance.

Funding: No

Disclosures: None

Background: US healthcare facilities experienced significant personal protective equipment (PPE) shortages, including N95 masks, in the spring and summer of 2020. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued guidance for extended use, reprocessing, and reuse of N95s. Eskenazi Health (EH) implemented a program to reprocess N95s and other PPE on-site using low-heat decontamination (LHD). EH considered large-scale and small-scale ultraviolet (UV), hydrogen peroxide vapor, and LHD for on-site reprocessing of N95s. All of these methods allowed up to 3 reprocessing cycles according to most literature available at the time. However, each method differed in feasibility and acceptability to staff. EH chose to implement LHD based on both considerations. Methods: Numerous small-group meetings were held in April 2020 to determine the feasibility and acceptability of N95 reprocessing methods. Staff wanted a method that was easy for the end user, had quick turnaround, and allowed them to retrieve their own N95s. They favored a method that could be used for all PPE. EH had deployed numerous small UV machines that individuals could use for N95s. The UV machines could not be scaled up easily. To scale up, a multidisciplinary team comprising infection prevention, biomedical engineering, and sterile processing representatives reviewed available methods and implemented LHD. Biomedical engineers determined that existing blanket warmers could be reprogrammed and repurposed for low-heat decontamination. Food warmers were also available but were not needed. Biomedical engineers reprogrammed the blanket warmers to 70°C and developed a wicking system using a towel and water tray to maintain humidity; decontamination took 30 minutes. Testing runs determined that both N95s and eye protection tolerated LHD without apparent damage. Infection prevention staff developed a workflow in which staff deposited all PPE in a paper bag; the PPE bag was centrally reprocessed, marked (Figure 1), and returned to designated locations (Figure 2) for staff to retrieve their original PPE. Sterile processing staff facilitated the reprocessing workflow, and elective surgeries were canceled during the COVID-19 surge. Results: From April 20, 2020, to July 19, 2020, 7,512 units were decontaminated with LHD. If each N95 was sterilized thrice (4 uses per N95), then LHD reduced the need to purchase 22,536 N95s. Restarting elective surgeries decreased staff and support from sterile processing; the space was needed for other purposes; and N95 availability increased. All of these factors led to the discontinuation of LHD. Conclusions: LHD enables reprocessing of N95s and other PPE using existing assets. LHD is advantageous because of scalability and the capacity to provide staff with their own reprocessed PPE.

Funding: No

Disclosures: None

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Background: So far, there have been no studies on Candida auris in Qatar. We describe the clinical spectrum and outcome of C. auris infection in patients admitted to a general hospital in Qatar. Methods: We conducted this descriptive observational study in a general hospital in Qatar. We have included all patients with C. auris infection and colonization admitted to a general hospital from December 2018 to August 2019. Results: We identified 13 patients with confirmed C. auris infection or colonization, of whom 5 cases represented an actual C. auris infection, while the remaining 8 cases were considered colonization. The mean age of the patients with infection was 76.6 years (SD, ±8.4), while the mean age of the patients with colonization was 66.4 years (SD, ±24.7). Among the individuals clinically infected with C. auris, 2 had urinary tract infections, 1 had candidemia, 1 acquired a soft-tissue infection, and 1 had a lower respiratory tract infection. All strains of C. auris were susceptible to echinocandins, flucytosine, and posaconazole while resistant to fluconazole and amphotericin B. Of the patients with C. auris infection who received systemic antifungal therapy, 3 (60%) died during antifungal therapy. Conclusions: Our study showed that C. auris can cause a wide variety of invasive infections, including bloodstream infection, urinary tract infection, skin infection, and lower respiratory tract infections, especially in critically ill patients. In addition, our isolates showed resistance to the most common antifungal agents such as fluconazole and amphotericin B.

Funding: No

Disclosures: None

Background: Contaminated surfaces in healthcare settings contribute to the transmission of pathogens. Environmental cleaning and disinfection are important for preventing pathogen transmission and reducing healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). Hospital cleanliness plays a large role in patient perception of the healthcare setting and, consequently, of patient satisfaction. However, patient perceptions of environmental cleaning remain unclear. To engage patients as part of achieving patient-centered care, we undertook a qualitative study to examine patient perspectives on environmental cleaning and disinfection in healthcare settings. Methods: We conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with 14 hospitalized patients at a large midwestern Veterans’ Administration hospital. Interviews were audio recorded, professionally transcribed verbatim, summarized in a “key domains” template developed by the research team, then coded for emerging themes. Results: Patients reported feeling satisfied with hospital cleanliness and especially the daily cleaning they observed while hospitalized. Cleaning activities highlighted included mopping and disinfecting high-touch surfaces, bathrooms, and floors. Despite this overall positive response, some patients expressed worries of being “in the way” or burdensome if they were in their rooms while staff were cleaning. One interviewee stated, “It’s easier for them if there isn’t a patient in [the room] … it’s hard to do any endeavor when you’ve got a complete stranger watching you.” Patients also acknowledged the importance of careful cleaning, especially during the COVID-19 crisis; “It’s got to be something you take seriously, especially during this pandemic.” Some patients spoke of the relationship which can develop between environmental services staff during daily hospital room cleaning. Conclusions: Patient perceptions of environmental cleaning are important to understand and incorporate into clinical practice. Overall, patients felt that their environments were clean, and they expressed confidence in the staff’s work. Interviewees additionally spoke of their own self-efficacy, saying they try to clean up after themselves and would feel comfortable speaking up if something needed to be cleaned. However, some patients acknowledged feeling burdensome to the environmental services staff if patients were present in rooms while staff cleaned. Cleaning activities may become more patient-centric if they are better planned (eg, while patient is out of the room) or based on patient preferences on time of day.

Funding: No

Disclosures: None

Background: Environmental cleaning is important in the interruption of pathogen transmission and subsequent infection. Although recent initiatives have targeted cleaning of high-touch surfaces and incorporated audit-and-feedback monitoring of cleaning practices, practice variations exist and compliance is still reportedly low. Evaluation of human factors influencing variations in cleaning practices can be valuable in developing interventions, leading to standardized practices and improved compliance. We conducted a work system analysis using a human-factors engineering framework [the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) model] to identify barriers and facilitators to current environmental cleaning practices within Veterans’ Affairs hospitals. Methods: We conducted semistructured interviews with key stakeholders (ie, environmental staff, nursing, and infection preventionists) at 3 VA facilities across acute-care and long-term care settings. Interviews were conducted among 18 healthcare workers, audio recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analyzed for thematic content within the SEIPS constructs (ie, person, environment, organization, tasks, and tools). Results: Within the SEIPS domain ‘person,’ we found that many environment service (EVS) staff were veterans and were highly motivated to serve fellow veterans, especially to prevent them from acquiring infections. However, the hiring of service members as EVS staff comes with significant hurdles that affect staffing. Within the domain of ‘environment’, EVS staff reported rooms that were either occupied by the patient or were multibed, were more difficult to clean. Conversely, they reported that it was easier to clean in settings where the patient was more likely to be out of bed (eg, long-term care residents). Patient flow and/or movement greatly influenced workload within the ‘organizational’ domain. Workload also changed by patient population and setting (eg, the longer the stay or more critical the patient), increased their workload. EVS staff felt that staffing consistency and experience improved cleaning practices. Within the ‘task’ domain, EVS staff were motivated for cleaning high-touch surfaces; however, knowledge of these surfaces varied. Finally, within the ‘tool’ domain, most EVS staff described having effective cleaning products; however, sometimes in limited supply. Most sites reported some form of monitoring of their cleaning process; however, there was variation in type and frequency. Conclusions: Human-factors analysis identified barriers to and facilitators of cleaning compliance. Incorporating environmental cleaning practices that address barriers and facilitators identified may facilitate standardized cleaning of environmental surfaces. Standardized procedures for cleaning multibed rooms and environmental surfaces surrounding occupied beds may improve cleaning compliance. Future research should evaluate standardized cleaning procedures or bundles that incorporate these best practices and steps to overcoming barriers and pilot feasibility.

Funding: No

Disclosures: None

Background: Hospital beds are now high-tech, reprocessable, medical devices. The surface of the mattress (cover) is manufactured using polyurethane-coated fabric to ensure moisture-vapor transmission to prevent pressure ulcers. In recent years, due to multidrug-resistant organisms, healthcare organizations have used increasingly harsh chemicals to clean these mattresses. None of these chemicals are approved for use on polyurethane-coated fabric. Previous research has shown that many mattresses in hospitals are damaged. The US Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, ECRI, and manufacturers recommend routine mattress inspection and replacement of mattresses with any visible signs of stains, wear, or damage. Damaged mattresses have been linked to fluid leakage, resulting in patient exposure and outbreaks of healthcare-acquired infections. Methods: Four hospitals of a midwestern hospital system had all of their mattresses inspected for damage and staining to the mattress. After external examination, each mattress was opened, and the mattress core was evaluated for damage. The cover of each mattress was examined using the naked eye and then using an LED light to demonstrate smaller holes. Each bed frame was examined for evidence of rust, and the amount of rust was recorded. If available, the age of the mattress was determined based on a label on the mattress. Results: In total, 727 beds and mattresses were inspected. Of these mattresses, 523 (72%) were damaged. Also, 340 (47%) required replacement of the mattress cover, and 183 (25%) required replacement of the entire mattress (cover and core). For the 209 damaged mattresses (40%) with the date of manufacture label, 156 (75%) were <4 years old. Damage to the mattress included 428 (59%) with holes in the cover: 113 (16%) were visible to the naked eye and 315 (43%) small holes only detected by using an LED light. Also 173 mattresses (24%) had stains on the exterior cover, 215 (30%) had stains on the interior of the top cover, and 192 (26%) had stains on the interior of the bottom cover. Bed-frame rust was identified on 175 (24%) beds, of which 65 (9%) had widespread rust. Conclusions: These findings confirm previous reports that damaged mattresses are common in hospitals and potentially place patients at risk. Most of these failed mattresses are <4 years old, which is much less than the expected life of a mattress and bed deck.

Funding: No

Disclosures: None