Prior studies of universal masking have not measured face-mask compliance. We performed a quality improvement study to monitor and improve face-mask compliance among healthcare personnel (HCP) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

Mixed-methods study.

Tertiary-care center in West Haven, Connecticut.

HCP including physicians, nurses, and ancillary staff.

Face-mask compliance was measured through direct observations during a 4-week baseline period after universal masking was mandated. Frontline and management HCP completed semistructured interviews from which a multimodal intervention was developed. Direct observations were repeated during a 14-week period following implementation of the multimodal intervention. Differences between units were evaluated with χ2 testing using the Bonferroni correction. Face-mask compliance between baseline and intervention periods was compared using time-series regression.

Among 1,561 observations during the baseline period, median weekly face-mask compliance was 82.2% (range, 80.8%–84.4%). Semistructured interviews were performed with 16 HCP. Qualitative analysis informed the development of a multimodal intervention consisting of audit and passive feedback, active discussion, and increased communication from leadership. Among 2,651 observations during the intervention period, median weekly face-mask compliance was 92.6% (range, 84.6%–97.9%). There was no difference in weekly face-mask compliance between COVID-19 and non–COVID-19 units. The multimodal intervention was associated with an increase in face-mask compliance (β = 0.023; P = .002).

Face-mask compliance remained suboptimal among HCP despite a facility-wide mandate for universal masking. A multimodal intervention consisting of audit and passive feedback, active discussion, and increased communication from leadership was effective in increasing face-mask compliance among HCP.

To determine clinical characteristics associated with false-negative severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) test results to help inform coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) testing practices in the inpatient setting.

A retrospective observational cohort study.

Tertiary-care facility.

All patients 2 years of age and older tested for SARS-CoV-2 between March 14, 2020, and April 30, 2020, who had at least 2 SARS-CoV-2 reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction tests within 7 days.

The primary outcome measure was a false-negative testing episode, which we defined as an initial negative test followed by a positive test within the subsequent 7 days. Data collected included symptoms, demographics, comorbidities, vital signs, labs, and imaging studies. Logistic regression was used to model associations between clinical variables and false-negative SARS-CoV-2 test results.

Of the 1,009 SARS-CoV-2 test results included in the analysis, 4.0% were false-negative results. In multivariable regression analysis, compared with true-negative test results, false-negative test results were associated with anosmia or ageusia (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 8.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4–50.5; P = .02), having had a COVID-19–positive contact (aOR, 10.5; 95% CI, 4.3–25.4; P < .0001), and having an elevated lactate dehydrogenase level (aOR, 3.3; 95% CI, 1.2–9.3; P = .03). Demographics, symptom duration, other laboratory values, and abnormal chest imaging were not significantly associated with false-negative test results in our multivariable analysis.

Clinical features can help predict which patients are more likely to have false-negative SARS-CoV-2 test results.

To evaluate the role of procalcitonin (PCT) results in antibiotic decisions for COVID-19 patients at hospital presentation.

Multicenter retrospective observational study of patients ≥18 years hospitalized due to COVID-19 at the Johns Hopkins Health system. Patients who were transferred from another facility with >24 hours stay and patients who died within 48 hours of hospitalization were excluded.

Elevated PCT values were determined based on each hospital’s definition. Antibiotic therapy and PCT results were evaluated for patients with no evidence of bacterial community-acquired pneumonia (bCAP) and patients with confirmed, probable, or possible bCAP. The added value of PCT testing to clinical criteria in detecting bCAP was evaluated using receiving operating curve characteristics (ROC).

Of 962 patients, 611 (64%) received a PCT test. ROC curves for clinical criteria and clinical criteria plus PCT test were similar (at 0.5 ng/mL and 0.25 ng/mL). By bCAP group, median initial PCT values were 0.58 ng/mL (interquartile range [IQR], 0.24–1.14), 0.23 ng/mL (IQR, 0.1–0.63), and 0.15 ng/mL (IQR, 0.09–0.35) for proven/probable, possible, and no bCAP groups, respectively. Among patients without bCAP, an elevated PCT level was associated with 1.8 additional days of CAP therapy (95% CI, 1.01–2.75; P < .01) compared to patients with a negative PCT result after adjusting for potential confounders. Duration of CAP therapy was similar between patients without a PCT test ordered and a low PCT level for no bCAP and possible bCAP groups.

PCT results may be abnormal in COVID-19 patients without bCAP and may result in receipt of unnecessary antibiotics.

To assess the incidence of colonization and infection with carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (CPE) and carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CR-Ab) in the ICUs of our city hospitals before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

We conducted a multicenter, before-and-after, cross-sectional study to compare the rates of colonization and infection with CPE and/or CR-Ab in 2 study periods, period 1 (January–April 2019) and period 2 (January–April 2020). Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of weekly colonization and infection rates for each period were compared for the 2 study periods using Poisson regression. Weekly trends in the incidence of colonization or infection for each study period were summarized using local weighted (Loess) regression.

We detected no significant change in either IRR and weekly trend in CPE colonization and infection during the 2 study periods. A shift from KPC to other CPE mechanisms (OXA-48 and VIM) was observed during period 2. Compared to period 1, during period 2 the IRR of colonization and infection with CR-Ab increased 7.5- and 5.5-fold, respectively. Genome sequencing showed that all CR-Ab strains belonged to the CC92/IC2 clonal lineage. Clinical strains clustered closely into a single monophyletic group in 1 of the 3 centers, whereas they segregated in 2 different clusters in the other 2 centers, which strongly indicates horizontal transmission.

Our findings indicate the need to conduct infection control activities targeted against the spread of antimicrobial resistance between and within hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic, and if necessary, remodulating them according to the new organizational structures imposed by the pandemic.

In this study, we aimed to (1) estimate the severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection rate and the secondary attack rate among healthcare workers (HCWs) in Québec, the most affected province of Canada during the first wave; (2) describe the evolution of work-related exposures and infection prevention and control (IPC) practices in infected HCWs; and (3) compare the exposures and practices between acute-care hospitals (ACHs) and long-term care facilities (LTCFs).

Survey of cases.

The study included Québec HCWs from private and public institutions with laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnosed between March 1 and June 14, 2020. HCWs aged ≥18 years who worked during the exposure period and survived their illness were eligible for the survey.

After obtaining consent, 4,542 HCWs completed a standardized questionnaire. COVID-19 rates and proportions of exposures and practices were estimated and compared between ACHs and LTCFs.

HCWs represented 13,726 (25%) of 54,005 reported COVID-19 cases in Québec and had an 11-times greater rate of COVID-19 than non-HCWs. Their secondary household attack rate was 30%. Most affected occupations were healthcare support workers, nurses and nurse assistants working in LTCFs (45%) and ACHs (30%). Compared to ACHs, HCWs in LTCFs had less training, higher staff mobility between working sites, similar PPE use, and better self-reported compliance with at-work physical distancing. Suboptimal IPC practices declined over time but were still present at the end of the first wave.

Québec HCWs and their families were severely affected during the first wave of COVID-19. Insufficient pandemic preparedness and suboptimal IPC practices likely contributed to high transmission in both LTCFs and ACHs.

We hypothesized that healthcare workers (HCWs) with high-risk exposures outside the healthcare system would have less asymptomatic coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) disease and more symptoms than those without such exposures.

A longitudinal point prevalence study was conducted during August 17–September 4, 2020 (period 1) and during December 2–23, 2020 (period 2).

Community based teaching health system.

All HCWs were invited to participate. Among HCWs who acquired COVID-19, logistic regression models were used to evaluate the adjusted odds of asymptomatic disease using high-risk exposure outside the healthcare system as the explanatory variable. The number of symptoms between exposure groups was evaluated with the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. The risk of seropositivity among all HCS by work exposure was evaluated during both periods.

Survey and serological testing.

Seroprevalence increased from 1.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2%–2.6%) to 13.7% (95% CI, 11.9%–15.5%) during the study. Only during period 2 did HCWs with the highest work exposure (versus low exposure) have an increased risk of seropositivity (risk difference [RD], 7%; 95% CI, 1%–13%). Participants who had a high-risk exposure outside of work (compared to those without) had a decreased probability of asymptomatic disease (odds ratio [OR], 0.38; 95% CI, 0.16–0.86) and demonstrated more symptoms (median 3 [IQR, 2–6] vs 1 [IQR, 0–4]; P = .001).

Healthcare-acquired COVID-19 increases the probability of asymptomatic or mild COVID-19 disease compared to community-acquired disease. This finding suggests that infection prevention strategies (including masks and eye protection) may be mitigating inoculum and supports the variolation theory in COVID-19.

Physical distancing among healthcare workers (HCWs) is an essential strategy in preventing HCW-to-HCWs transmission of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

To understand barriers to physical distancing among HCWs on an inpatient unit and identify strategies for improvement.

Qualitative study including observations and semistructured interviews conducted over 3 months.

A non–COVID-19 adult general medical unit in an academic tertiary-care hospital.

HCWs based on the unit.

We performed a qualitative study in which we (1) observed HCW activities and proximity to each other on the unit during weekday shifts July–October 2020 and (2) conducted semi-structured interviews of HCWs to understand their experiences with and perspectives of physical distancing in the hospital. Qualitative data were coded based on a human-factors engineering model.

We completed 25 hours of observations and 20 HCW interviews. High-risk interactions often occurred during handoffs of care at shift changes and patient rounds, when HCWs gathered regularly in close proximity for at least 15 minutes. Identified barriers included spacing and availability of computers, the need to communicate confidential patient information, and the desire to maintain relationships at work.

Physical distancing can be improved in hospitals by restructuring computer workstations, work rooms, and break rooms; applying visible cognitive aids; adapting shift times; and supporting rounds and meetings with virtual conferencing. Additional strategies to promote staff adherence to physical distancing include rewarding positive behaviors, having peer leaders model physical distancing, and encouraging additional safe avenues for social connection at a safe distance.