We quantified hospital-acquired coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during the early phases of the pandemic, and we evaluated solely temporal determinations of hospital acquisition.

Retrospective observational study during early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, March 1–November 30, 2020. We identified laboratory-detected severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) from 30 days before admission through discharge. All cases detected after hospital day 5 were categorized by chart review as community or unlikely hospital-acquired cases, or possible or probable hospital-acquired cases.

The study was conducted in 2 acute-care hospitals in Chicago, Illinois.

The study included all hospitalized patients including an inpatient rehabilitation unit.

Each hospital implemented infection-control precautions soon after identifying COVID-19 cases, including patient and staff cohort protocols, universal masking, and restricted visitation policies.

Among 2,667 patients with SARS-CoV-2, detection before hospital day 6 was most common (n = 2,612; 98%); detection during hospital days 6–14 was uncommon (n = 43; 1.6%); and detection after hospital day 14 was rare (n = 16; 0.6%). By chart review, most cases after day 5 were categorized as community acquired, usually because SARS-CoV-2 had been detected at a prior healthcare facility (68% of cases on days 6–14 and 53% of cases after day 14). The incidence rates of possible and probable hospital-acquired cases per 10,000 patient days were similar for ICU- and non-ICU patients at hospital A (1.2 vs 1.3 difference, 0.1; 95% CI, −2.8 to 3.0) and hospital B (2.8 vs 1.2 difference, 1.6; 95% CI, −0.1 to 4.0).

Most patients were protected by early and sustained application of infection-control precautions modified to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Using solely temporal criteria to discriminate hospital versus community acquisition would have misclassified many “late onset” SARS-CoV-2–positive cases.

In March 2020, New York City became the epicenter of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the United States. Because healthcare facilities were overwhelmed with patients, the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center was transformed into the nation’s largest alternate care site: Javits New York Medical Station (hereafter termed Javits). Protecting healthcare workers (HCWs) during a global shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE) in a nontraditional healthcare setting posed unique challenges. We describe components of the HCW safety program implemented at Javits.

Javits, a large convention center transformed into a field hospital, with clinical staff from the US Public Health Service Commissioned Corps and the US Department of Defense.

Key strategies to ensure HCW safety included ensuring 1-way flow of traffic on and off the patient floor, developing a matrix detailing PPE required for each work activity and location, PPE extended use and reuse protocols, personnel training, and monitoring adherence to PPE donning/doffing protocols when entering or exiting the patient floor. Javits staff who reported COVID-19 symptoms were immediately isolated, monitored, and offered a severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test.

A well-designed and implemented HCW safety plan can minimize the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection for HCWs. The lessons learned from operating the nation’s largest COVID-19 alternate care site can be adapted to other environments during public health emergencies.

To assess the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) reported from 128 acute-care and 132 long-term care Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities.

We compared central-line–associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs), ventilator-associated events (VAEs), catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs), methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and Clostridioides difficile infections and rates reported from each facility monthly to a centralized database before the pandemic (February 2019 through January 2020) and during the pandemic (July 2020 through June 2021).

Nationwide VA COVID-19 admissions peaked in January 2021. Significant increases in the rates of CLABSIs, VAEs, and MRSA all-site HAIs (but not MRSA CLABSIs) were observed during the pandemic in acute-care facilities. There was no significant change in CAUTI rates, and C. difficile rates significantly decreased. There were no significant increases in HAIs in long-term care facilities.

The COVID-19 pandemic had a differential impact on HAIs of various types in VA acute care, with many rates increasing. The decrease in CDI HAIs may be due, in part, to evolving diagnostic testing. The minimal impact of COVID-19 in VA long-term facilities may reflect differences in patient numbers and acuity and early recognition of the impact of the pandemic on nursing home residents leading to increased vigilance and optimization of infection prevention and control practices in that setting. These data support the need for building and sustaining conventional infection prevention and control strategies before and during a pandemic.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has required healthcare systems to meet new demands for rapid information dissemination, resource allocation, and data reporting. To help address these challenges, our institution leveraged electronic health record (EHR)–integrated clinical pathways (E-ICPs), which are easily understood care algorithms accessible at the point of care.

To describe our institution’s creation of E-ICPs to address the COVID-19 pandemic, and to assess the use and impact of these tools.

Urban academic medical center with adult and pediatric hospitals, emergency departments, and ambulatory practices.

Using the E-ICP processes and infrastructure established at our institution as a foundation, we developed a suite of COVID-19–specific E-ICPs along with a process for frequent reassessment and updating. We examined the development and use of our COVID-19–specific pathways for a 6-month period (March 1–September 1, 2020), and we have described their impact using case studies.

In total, 45 COVID-19–specific pathways were developed, pertaining to triage, diagnosis, and management of COVID-19 in diverse patient settings. Orders available in E-ICPs included those for isolation precautions, testing, treatments, admissions, and transfers. Pathways were accessed 86,400 times, with 99,081 individual orders were placed. Case studies demonstrate the impact of COVID-19 E-ICPs on stewardship of resources, testing optimization, and data reporting.

E-ICPs provide a flexible and unified mechanism to meet the evolving demands of the COVID-19 pandemic, and they continue to be a critical tool leveraged by clinicians and hospital administrators alike for the management of COVID-19. Lessons learned may be generalizable to other urgent and nonurgent clinical conditions.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused a global health crisis and may have affected healthcare-associated infection (HAI) prevention strategies. We evaluated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on HAI incidence in Brazilian intensive care units (ICUs).

In this ecological study, we compared adult patients admitted to the ICU from April through June 2020 (pandemic period) with the same period in 2019 (prepandemic period) in 21 Brazilian hospitals. We used the Wilcoxon signed rank-sum test in a pairwise analysis to compare the following differences between the pandemic and the prepandemic periods: microbiologically confirmed central-line–associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) incidence density (cases per 1,000 central line and ventilator days, respectively), the proportion of organisms that caused HAI, and antibiotic consumption (DDD).

We detected a significant increase in median CLABSI incidence during the pandemic: 1.60 (IQR, 0.44–4.20) vs 2.81 (IQR, 1.35–6.89) (P = .002). We did not detect a significant difference in VAP incidence between the 2 periods. In addition, we detected a significant increase in the proportion of CLABSI caused by Enterococcus faecalis and Candida spp during the pandemic, although only the latter retained statistical significance after correction for multiple comparisons. We did not detect a significant change in ceftriaxone, piperacillin–tazobactam, meropenem, or vancomycin consumption between the studied periods.

There was an increase in CLABSI incidence in Brazilian ICUs during the first months of COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, we detected an increase in the proportion of CLABSI caused by E. faecalis and Candida spp during this period. CLABSI prevention strategies must be reinforced in ICUs during the COVID-19 pandemic.

To assess the validity of Antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT) for SARS-CoV-2 as decision support tool in various hospital-based clinical settings.

Retrospective cohort study among symptomatic and asymptomatic patients and Healthcare workers (HCW).

A large tertiary teaching medical center serving as a major COVID-19 hospitalizing facility.

Ag-RDTs’ performance was assessed in three clinical settings: 1. Symptomatic patients and HCW presenting at the Emergency Departments 2. Asymptomatic patients screened upon hospitalization 3. HCW of all sectors tested at the HCW clinic following exposure.

We obtained 5172 samples from 4595 individuals, who had both Ag-RDT and quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) results available. Of these, 485 samples were positive by qRT-PCR. The positive percent agreement (PPA) of Ag-RDT was greater for lower cycle threshold (Ct) values, reaching 93% in cases where Ct-value was <25 and 85% where Ct-value was <30. PPA was similar between symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals. We observed a significant correlation between Ct-value and time from infection onset (p<0.001).

Ag-RDT are highly sensitive to the infectious stage of COVID-19 manifested by either high viral load (lower Ct) or proximity to infection, whether patient is symptomatic or asymptomatic. Thus, this simple-to-use and inexpensive detection method can be used as a decision support tool in various in-hospital clinical settings, assisting patient flow and maintaining sufficient hospital staffing.

Describe a severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) hospital outbreak and the role of serial testing of patients and healthcare personnel (HCP) in interrupting SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

Outbreak investigation.

Medical floor of a tertiary-care center in Minnesota.

Serial testing for SARS-CoV-2 and whole-genome sequencing (WGS) of positive specimens from HCP and patients were used. An outbreak-associated case was defined as a positive SARS-CoV-2 molecular test in an HCP who worked on the floor prior to testing positive or in a patient who was hospitalized on the medical floor bewteen October 27 and December 1, 2020. WGS was used to determine potential routes of transmission.

The outbreak was detected after a patient hospitalized for 12 days tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Serial testing of patients and HCP was conducted in response. Overall, 247 HCP and 41 patients participated in serial SARS-CoV-2 testing; 52 HCP (21%) and 19 hospitalized patients (46%) tested positive. One additional HCP tested positive outside serial testing. The WGS of specimens from 27 (51%) HCP and 15 (79%) patients identified 3 distinct transmission clusters. WGS and epidemiologic evidence suggested intrafacility transmission. The proportions of asymptomatic and presymptomatic patients who tested positive (63%) and HCP who worked during their infectious period (75%) highlight the need for serial testing of asymptomatic patients and HCP during outbreaks.

Coupled with preventive measures such as personal protective equipment use and physical distancing, serial testing of HCP and patients could help detect and prevent transmission within healthcare facilities during outbreaks and when nosocomial transmission is suspected.

Although a growing number of healthcare facilities are implementing healthcare personnel (HCP) coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination requirements, vaccine exemption request management as a part of such programs is not well described.

Cross-sectional survey.

Infectious disease (ID) physician members of the Emerging Infections Network with infection prevention or hospital epidemiology responsibilities.

Eligible persons were sent a web-based survey focused on hospital plans and practices around exemption allowances from HCP COVID-19 vaccine requirements.

Of the 695 ID physicians surveyed, 263 (38%) responded. Overall, 160 respondent institutions (92%) allowed medical exemptions, whereas 132 (76%) allowed religious exemptions. In contrast, only 14% (n = 24) allowed deeply held personal belief exemptions. The types of medical exemptions allowed varied considerably across facilities, with allergic reactions to the vaccine or its components accepted by 145 facilities (84%). For selected scenarios commonly used as the basis for religious and deeply held personal belief exemption requests, 144 institutions (83%) would not approve exemptions focused on concerns regarding right of consent or violations of freedom of personal choice, and 140 institutions (81%) would not approve exemptions focused on introducing foreign substances into one’s body or the sanctity of the body. Most respondents noted plans for additional infection prevention interventions for HCP who received an exemption for COVID-19 vaccination.

Although many respondent institutions allowed exemptions from HCP COVID-19 vaccination requirements, the types of exemptions allowed and how the exemption programs were structured varied widely.