The gold standard for hand hygiene (HH) while wearing gloves requires removing gloves, performing HH, and donning new gloves between WHO moments. The novel strategy of applying alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) directly to gloved hands might be effective and efficient.

A mixed-method, multicenter, 3-arm, randomized trial.

Adult and pediatric medical-surgical, intermediate, and intensive care units at 4 hospitals.

Healthcare personnel (HCP).

HCP were randomized to 3 groups: ABHR applied directly to gloved hands, the current standard, or usual care.

Gloved hands were sampled via direct imprint. Gold-standard and usual-care arms were compared with the ABHR intervention.

Bacteria were identified on gloved hands after 432 (67.4%) of 641 observations in the gold-standard arm versus 548 (82.8%) of 662 observations in the intervention arm (P < .01). HH required a mean of 14 seconds in the intervention and a mean of 28.7 seconds in the gold-standard arm (P < .01). Bacteria were identified on gloved hands after 133 (98.5%) of 135 observations in the usual-care arm versus 173 (76.6%) of 226 observations in the intervention arm (P < .01). Of 331 gloves tested 6 (1.8%) were found to have microperforations; all were identified in the intervention arm [6 (2.9%) of 205].

Compared with usual care, contamination of gloved hands was significantly reduced by applying ABHR directly to gloved hands but statistically higher than the gold standard. Given time savings and microbiological benefit over usual care and lack of feasibility of adhering to the gold standard, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization should consider advising HCP to decontaminate gloved hands with ABHR when HH moments arise during single-patient encounters.

Trial Registration: NCT03445676.

Environmental cleaning is important in the interruption of pathogen transmission. Although prevention initiatives have targeted environmental cleaning, practice variations exist and compliance is low. Evaluation of human factors influencing variations in cleaning practices can be valuable in developing interventions to standardized practices. We conducted a work-system analysis using a human-factors engineering (HFE) framework to identify barriers and facilitators to environmental cleaning practices in acute and long-term care settings within the Veterans’ Affairs health system.

We conducted a qualitative study with key stakeholders at 3 VA facilities. We analyzed transcripts for thematic content and mapped themes to the HFE framework.

Staffing consistency was felt to improve cleaning practices and teamwork. We found that many environmental management service (EMS) staff were veterans who were motivated to serve fellow veterans, especially to prevent infections. However, hiring veterans comes with regulatory hurdles that affect staffing. Sites reported some form of monitoring their cleaning process, but there was variation in method and frequency. The EMS workload was affected by whether rooms were occupied by patients or were semiprivate rooms; both were reportedly more difficult to clean. Room design and surface finishes were identified as important to cleaning efficiency.

HFE work analysis identified barriers and facilitators to environmental cleaning. These findings highlight intervention entry points that may facilitate standardized work practices. There is a need to develop task-specific procedures such as cleaning occupied beds and semiprivate rooms. Future research should evaluate interventions that address these determinants of environmental cleaning.

We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination against post-COVID conditions (long COVID) among fully vaccinated individuals.

Systematic literature review/meta-analysis.

We searched PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Web of Science from December 1, 2019, to June 2, 2023, for studies evaluating the COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) against post-COVID conditions among fully vaccinated individuals who received two doses of COVID-19 vaccine. A post-COVID condition was defined as any symptom that was present four or more weeks after COVID-19 infection. We calculated the pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) (95% confidence interval) for post-COVID conditions between fully vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% x (1-DOR).

Thirty-two studies with 775,931 individuals evaluated the effect of vaccination on post-COVID conditions, of which, twenty-four studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled DOR for post-COVID conditions among fully vaccinated individuals was 0.680 (95% CI: 0.523–0.885) with an estimated VE of 32.0% (11.5%–47.7%). Vaccine effectiveness was 36.9% (23.1%–48.2%) among those who received two doses of COVID-19 vaccine before COVID-19 infection and 68.7% (64.7%–72.2%) among those who received three doses before COVID-19 infection. The stratified analysis demonstrated no protection against post-COVID conditions among those who received COVID-19 vaccination after COVID-19 infection.

Receiving a complete COVID-19 vaccination prior to contracting the virus resulted in a significant reduction in post-COVID conditions throughout the study period, including during the Omicron era. Vaccine effectiveness demonstrated an increase when supplementary doses were administered.

Patients diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) aerosolize severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) via respiratory efforts, expose, and possibly infect healthcare personnel (HCP). To prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 HCP have been required to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) during patient care. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, face shields were used as an approach to control HCP exposure to SARS-CoV-2, including eye protection.

An MS2 bacteriophage was used as a surrogate for SARS-CoV-2 and was aerosolized using a coughing machine. A simulated HCP wearing a disposable plastic face shield was placed 0.41 m (16 inches) away from the coughing machine. The aerosolized virus was sampled using SKC biosamplers on the inside (near the mouth of the simulated HCP) and the outside of the face shield. The aerosolized virus collected by the SKC Biosampler was analyzed using a viability assay. Optical particle counters (OPCs) were placed next to the biosamplers to measure the particle concentration.

There was a statistically significant reduction (P < .0006) in viable virus concentration on the inside of the face shield compared to the outside of the face shield. The particle concentration was significantly lower on the inside of the face shield compared to the outside of the face shield for 12 of the 16 particle sizes measured (P < .05).

Reductions in virus and particle concentrations were observed on the inside of the face shield; however, viable virus was measured on the inside of the face shield, in the breathing zone of the HCP. Therefore, other exposure control methods need to be used to prevent transmission from virus aerosol.

To evaluate the impact of a multicenter, try automated dashboard on ASP activities and its acceptance among ASP leaders.

Frontline stewards were asked to participate in semi-structured interviews before and after implementation of a web-based ASP information dashboard providing risk-adjusted benchmarking, longitudinal trends, and analysis of antimicrobial usage patterns at each facility.

The study was performed at Iowa City VA Health Care System.

ASP team members from nine medical centers in the VA Midwest Health Care Network (VISN 23).

Semi-structured interviews were conducted pre- and post-implementation, with interview guides informed by clinical experiences and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Participants evaluated the dashboard’s ease of use, applicability to ongoing ASP activities, perceived validity and reliability, and relative advantage over other ASP monitoring systems.

Compared to established stewardship data collection and reporting methods, participants found the dashboard more intuitive and accessible, allowing them to reduce dependence on other systems and staff to obtain and share data. Standardized and risk-adjusted rankings were largely accepted as a valuable benchmarking method; however, participants felt their facility’s characteristics significantly influenced the rankings’ validity. Participants recognized staffing, training, and uncertainty with using the dashboard as an intervention tool as barriers to consistent and comprehensive dashboard implementation.

Participants generally accepted the dashboard’s risk-adjusted metrics and appreciated its usability. While creating automated tools to rigorously benchmark antimicrobial use across hospitals can be helpful, the displayed metrics require further validation, and the longitudinal utility of the dashboard warrants additional study.

We assessed the implementation of telehealth-supported stewardship activities in acute-care units and long-term care (LTC) units in Veterans’ Administration medical centers (VAMCs).

Before-and-after, quasi-experimental implementation effectiveness study with a baseline period (2019–2020) and an intervention period (2021).

The study was conducted in 3 VAMCs without onsite infectious disease (ID) support.

The study included inpatient providers at participating sites who prescribe antibiotics.

During 2021, an ID physician met virtually 3 times per week with the stewardship pharmacist at each participating VAMC to review patients on antibiotics in acute-care units and LTC units. Real-time feedback on prescribing antibiotics was given to providers. Additional implementation strategies included stakeholder engagement, education, and quality monitoring.

The reach–effectiveness–adoption–implementation–maintenance (RE-AIM) framework was used for program evaluation. The primary outcome of effectiveness was antibiotic days of therapy (DOT) per 1,000 days present aggregated across all 3 sites. An interrupted time-series analysis was performed to compare this rate during the intervention and baseline periods. Electronic surveys, periodic reflections, and semistructured interviews were used to assess other RE-AIM outcomes.

The telehealth program reviewed 502 unique patients and made 681 recommendations to 24 providers; 77% of recommendations were accepted. After program initiation, antibiotic DOT immediately decreased in the LTC units (−30%; P < .01) without a significant immediate change in the acute-care units (+16%; P = .22); thereafter DOT remained stable in both settings. Providers generally appreciated feedback and collaborative discussions.

The implementation of our telehealth program was associated with reductions in antibiotic use in the LTC units but not in the smaller acute-care units. Overall, providers perceived the intervention as acceptable. Wider implementation of telehealth-supported stewardship activities may achieve reductions in antibiotic use.

To determine risk factors for the development of long coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in healthcare personnel (HCP).

We conducted a case–control study among HCP who had confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 working in a Brazilian healthcare system between March 1, 2020, and July 15, 2022. Cases were defined as those having long COVID according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definition. Controls were defined as HCP who had documented COVID-19 but did not develop long COVID. Multiple logistic regression was used to assess the association between exposure variables and long COVID during 180 days of follow-up.

Of 7,051 HCP diagnosed with COVID-19, 1,933 (27.4%) who developed long COVID were compared to 5,118 (72.6%) who did not. The majority of those with long COVID (51.8%) had 3 or more symptoms. Factors associated with the development of long COVID were female sex (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.05–1.39), age (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00–1.02), and 2 or more SARS-CoV-2 infections (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07–1.50). Those infected with the SARS-CoV-2 δ (delta) variant (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.17–0.50) or the SARS-CoV-2 o (omicron) variant (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30–0.78), and those receiving 4 COVID-19 vaccine doses prior to infection (OR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.01–0.19) were significantly less likely to develop long COVID.

Long COVID can be prevalent among HCP. Acquiring >1 SARS-CoV-2 infection was a major risk factor for long COVID, while maintenance of immunity via vaccination was highly protective.

Although multiple studies have revealed that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines can reduce COVID-19–related outcomes, little is known about their impact on post–COVID-19 conditions. We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination against post–COVID-19 conditions (ie, long COVID).

We searched PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Web of Science from December 1, 2019, to April 27, 2022, for studies evaluating COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against post–COVID-19 conditions among individuals who received at least 1 dose of Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, AstraZeneca, or Janssen vaccine. A post–COVID-19 condition was defined as any symptom that was present 3 or more weeks after having COVID-19. Editorials, commentaries, reviews, study protocols, and studies in the pediatric population were excluded. We calculated the pooled diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) for post–COVID-19 conditions between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated as 100% × (1 − DOR).

In total, 10 studies with 1,600,830 individuals evaluated the effect of vaccination on post–COVID-19 conditions, of which 6 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled DOR for post–COVID-19 conditions among individuals vaccinated with at least 1 dose was 0.708 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.692–0.725) with an estimated vaccine effectiveness of 29.2% (95% CI, 27.5%–30.8%). The vaccine effectiveness was 35.3% (95% CI, 32.3%–38.1%) among those who received the COVID-19 vaccine before having COVID-19, and 27.4% (95% CI, 25.4%–29.3%) among those who received it after having COVID-19.

COVID-19 vaccination both before and after having COVID-19 significantly decreased post–COVID-19 conditions for the circulating variants during the study period although vaccine effectiveness was low.

Contaminated surfaces in healthcare settings contribute to the transmission of nosocomial pathogens. Adequate environmental cleaning is important for preventing the transmission of important pathogens and reducing healthcare-associated infections. However, effective cleaning practices vary considerably. We examined environmental management services (EMS) staff experiences and perceptions surrounding environmental cleaning to describe perceived challenges and ideas to promote an effective environmental services program.

Qualitative study.

Frontline EMS staff.

From January to June 2019, we conducted individual semistructured interviews with key stakeholders (ie, EMS staff) at 3 facilities within the Veterans’ Affairs Healthcare System. We used the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) framework (ie, people, environment, organization, tasks, tools) to guide this study. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for thematic content.

In total, 13 EMS staff and supervisors were interviewed. A predominant theme that emerged were the challenges EMS staff saw as hindering their ability to be effective at their jobs. EMS staff interviewed felt they understand their job requirements and are dedicated to their work; however, they described challenges related to feeling undervalued and staffing issues.

EMS staff play a critical role in infection prevention in healthcare settings. However, some do not believe their role is recognized or valued by the larger healthcare team and leadership. EMS staff provided ideas for improving feelings of value and job satisfaction, including higher pay, opportunities for certifications and advancement, as well as collaboration or integration with the larger healthcare team. Healthcare organizations should focus on utilizing these suggestions to improve the EMS work climate.

To describe national trends in testing and detection of carbapenemases produced by carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) and associate testing with culture and facility characteristics.

Retrospective cohort study.

Department of Veterans’ Affairs medical centers (VAMCs).

Patients seen at VAMCs between 2013 and 2018 with cultures positive for CRE, defined by national VA guidelines.

Microbiology and clinical data were extracted from national VA data sets. Carbapenemase testing was summarized using descriptive statistics. Characteristics associated with carbapenemase testing were assessed with bivariate analyses.

Of 5,778 standard cultures that grew CRE, 1,905 (33.0%) had evidence of molecular or phenotypic carbapenemase testing and 1,603 (84.1%) of these had carbapenemases detected. Among these cultures confirmed as carbapenemase-producing CRE, 1,053 (65.7%) had molecular testing for ≥1 gene. Almost all testing included KPC (n = 1,047, 99.4%), with KPC detected in 914 of 1,047 (87.3%) cultures. Testing and detection of other enzymes was less frequent. Carbapenemase testing increased over the study period from 23.5% of CRE cultures in 2013 to 58.9% in 2018. The South US Census region (38.6%) and the Northeast (37.2%) region had the highest proportion of CRE cultures with carbapenemase testing. High complexity (vs low) and urban (vs rural) facilities were significantly associated with carbapenemase testing (P < .0001).

Between 2013 and 2018, carbapenemase testing and detection increased in the VA, largely reflecting increased testing and detection of KPC. Surveillance of other carbapenemases is important due to global spread and increasing antibiotic resistance. Efforts supporting the expansion of carbapenemase testing to low-complexity, rural healthcare facilities and standardization of reporting of carbapenemase testing are needed.