Testing of asymptomatic patients for severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (ie, “asymptomatic screening) to attempt to reduce the risk of nosocomial transmission has been extensive and resource intensive, and such testing is of unclear benefit when added to other layers of infection prevention mitigation controls. In addition, the logistic challenges and costs related to screening program implementation, data noting the lack of substantial aerosol generation with elective controlled intubation, extubation, and other procedures, and the adverse patient and facility consequences of asymptomatic screening call into question the utility of this infection prevention intervention. Consequently, the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) recommends against routine universal use of asymptomatic screening for SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare facilities. Specifically, preprocedure asymptomatic screening is unlikely to provide incremental benefit in preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the procedural and perioperative environment when other infection prevention strategies are in place, and it should not be considered a requirement for all patients. Admission screening may be beneficial during times of increased virus transmission in some settings where other layers of controls are limited (eg, behavioral health, congregate care, or shared patient rooms), but widespread routine use of admission asymptomatic screening is not recommended over strengthening other infection prevention controls. In this commentary, we outline the challenges surrounding the use of asymptomatic screening, including logistics and costs of implementing a screening program, and adverse patient and facility consequences. We review data pertaining to the lack of substantial aerosol generation during elective controlled intubation, extubation, and other procedures, and we provide guidance for when asymptomatic screening for SARS-CoV-2 may be considered in a limited scope.

This consensus statement by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and the Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine (AMDA), the Association for Professionals in Epidemiology and Infection Control (APIC), the HIV Medicine Association (HIVMA), the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society (PIDS), and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists (SIDP) recommends that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination should be a condition of employment for all healthcare personnel in facilities in the United States. Exemptions from this policy apply to those with medical contraindications to all COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States and other exemptions as specified by federal or state law. The consensus statement also supports COVID-19 vaccination of nonemployees functioning at a healthcare facility (eg, students, contract workers, volunteers, etc).

Background: Nearly half of hospitalized patients with bacteriuria or treated for pneumonia receive unnecessary antibiotics (noninfectious or nonbacterial syndrome such as asymptomatic bacteriuria), excess duration (antibiotics prescribed for longer than necessary), or avoidable fluoroquinolones (safer alternative available) at hospital discharge.1–3 However, whether antibiotic overuse at discharge varies between hospitals or is associated with patient outcomes remains unknown. Methods: From July 2017 to December 2018, trained abstractors at 46 Michigan hospitals collected detailed data on a sample of adult, non–intensive care, hospitalized patients with bacteriuria (positive urine culture with or without symptoms) or treated for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP; includes those with the disease formerly known as healthcare-associated pneumonia [HCAP]). Antibiotic prescriptions at discharge were assessed for antibiotic overuse using a previously described, guideline-based hierarchical algorithm.3 Here, we report the proportion of patients discharged with antibiotic overuse by the hospital. We also assessed hospital-level correlation (using Pearson’s correlation coefficient) between antibiotic overuse at discharge for patients with bacteriuria and patients treated for CAP. Finally, we assessed the association of antibiotic overuse at discharge with patient outcomes (mortality, readmission, emergency department visit, and antibiotic-associated adverse events) at 30 days using logit generalized estimating equations adjusted for patient characteristics and probability of treatment. Results: Of 17,081 patients (7,207 with bacteriuria; 9,874 treated for pneumonia), nearly half (42.2%) had antibiotic overuse at discharge (36.3% bacteriuria and 51.1% pneumonia). The percentage of patients discharged with antibiotic overuse varied 5-fold among hospitals from 14.7% (95% CI, 8.0%–25.3%) to 74.3% (95% CI, 64.2%–83.8%). Hospital rates of antibiotic overuse at discharge were strongly correlated between bacteriuria and CAP (Pearson’s correlation coefficient, 0.76; P ≤ .001) (Fig. 1). In adjusted analyses, antibiotic overuse at discharge was not associated with death, readmission, emergency department visit, or Clostridioides difficile infection. However, each day of overuse was associated with a 5% increase in the odds of patient-reported antibiotic-associated adverse events after discharge (Fig. 2). Conclusions: Antibiotic overuse at discharge was common, varied widely between hospitals, and was associated with patient harm. Furthermore, antibiotic overuse at discharge was strongly correlated between 2 disparate diseases, suggesting that prescribing culture or discharge processes—rather than disease-specific factors—contribute to overprescribing at discharge. Thus, discharge stewardship may be needed to target multiple diseases.

Funding: This study was supported by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America and by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network.

Disclosures: Valerie M. Vaughn reports contracted research for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan, the Department of VA, the NIH, the SHEA, and the APIC. She also reports receipt of funds from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation Speaker’s Bureau, the CDC, the Pew Research Trust, Sepsis Alliance, and the Hospital and Health System Association of Pennsylvania.

Background:Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are frequently used to deliver intravenous (IV) antibiotic therapy after discharge from the hospital. Infectious disease (ID) physicians are often consulted prior to PICC placement, but whether their approval influences PICC appropriateness and complications is not known. Methods: Using data from the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium (HMS) on PICCs placed in critically ill and hospitalized medical patients between January 1, 2015, and July 26, 2019, we examined the association between ID physician approval of PICC insertion for IV antibiotics and device appropriateness and outcomes. Appropriateness was defined according to the Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC) as a composite measure of (1) avoiding PICC use for durations ≤5 days; (2) using single-lumen instead of multilumen catheters; and (3) avoiding PICC use in patients with chronic kidney disease (eGFR>45 mL/min). The associations between ID approval of PICC use and odds of PICC-related complications (eg, deep vein thrombosis, central-line–associated bloodstream infection, and catheter occlusion) were also assessed. Multivariable models adjusting for patient severity of illness and hospital-level clustering were fit to both outcomes. Results were expressed as odds ratios (ORs) with corresponding 95% CIs. Results: Data from 36,594 patients who underwent PICC placement across 42 Michigan hospitals were included in the analysis. In total, 21,653 (55%) PICCs were placed for the indication of IV antibiotics; 14,935 (69%) of these had a documented ID consultation prior to placement, whereas 6,718 (31%) did not. Of the 14,935 PICCs with an ID consultation, 10,238 (69%) had ID approval documented prior to device placement (Fig. 1). Compared to no approval, PICCs approved by ID prior to insertion were more likely to be appropriate (OR, 3.51; 95% CI, 3.28–3.77; P < .001). Specifically, approval was associated with higher single-lumen use (OR, 5.13; 95% CI, 4.72–5.58; P < .001), less placement of PICCs with dwell times ≤ 5 days (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.25–0.32; P < .001), and less frequent use in patients with chronic kidney disease (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73–0.87; P < .001). ID approval of PICCs prior to insertion was associated with a significantly lower odds of PICC-related complications (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.51–0.64) (Table 1). Conclusions: ID approval of PICC use for IV antibiotic therapy in hospitalized patients was associated with greater appropriateness and fewer complications. Policies aimed at ensuring ID review prior to PICC use may help improve patient and device safety.

Funding: None

Disclosures:Valerie M. Vaughn reports contract research for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan, the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, the NIH, the SHEA, and the APIC. She also reports fees from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation Speaker’s Bureau, the CDC, the Pew Research Trust, Sepsis Alliance, and The Hospital and Health System Association of Pennsylvania.

The impact of computerized order-entry bundles on timing of contact precaution initiation for C. difficile infection (CDI) remains largely unexplored. Implementation of an electronic CDI prevention and management bundle that included an automatic isolation component significantly reduced time to initiation of contact precautions from 33.7 to 22.4 hours.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;242–244

Implementation of an antimicrobial stewardship program bundle for urinary tract infections among 92 patients led to a higher rate of discontinuation of therapy for asymptomatic bacteriuria (52.4% vs 12.5%; P =.004), more appropriate durations of therapy (88.7% vs 63.6%; P =.001), and significantly higher overall bundle compliance (75% vs 38.2%; P < .001).

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;1499–1501

Treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria contributes to antimicrobial overuse in hospitalized patients. Indications for urine culture, treatment, and targets for improvement were evaluated in 153 patients. Drivers of antimicrobial overuse included fever with an alternative source, altered mental status, and leukocytosis, which led 435 excess days of antimicrobial therapy.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014;00(0): 1–4

Urine cultures are frequently obtained for hospitalized patients. We reviewed documented indications for culture and compared these with professional society guidelines. Lack of documentation and important clinical scenarios (before orthopedic procedures and when the patient has altered mental status without a urinary catheter) are highlighted as areas of use outside of current guidelines.