Background: Rates of ventilator-associated events (VAEs), including infection-related ventilator-associated complications (IVACs) and probable ventilator-associated pneumonia (PVAPs) have increased nationwide since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. In December 2021, our health system adopted a new electronic medical record (EMR), which changed the way surveillance for VAEs is performed. We reviewed surveillance criteria, COVID-19 status, and culturing practices in attempts to understand why VAE rates continue to be elevated. Methods: We collected data on VAE type, culture data, COVID-19 status, and surveillance criteria for all patients meeting NHSN definitions for VAE from 2018 through November 2022. For all patients in 2022 (post-EMR transition), 2 physicians (A.D. and M.D.) manually reviewed documented ventilator settings from flow sheets to validate the automated EMR data, and they evaluated culture data for appropriateness. Cultures were defined as appropriate unless they were included in “pancultures” for leukocytosis without concern for pneumonia documented. Rates were compared using an interrupted time series (ITS) analysis before and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and the EMR transition. Patient level data were compared across periods using the χ2 test. All analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4 software. Results: COVID-19 has been implicated in the increasing number of VAEs since the pandemic began: 6% of patients in 2020, 18% in 2021, and 23% in 2022 (P < .001). The percentage of patients meeting criteria for VAE by positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) decreased from 2018 to 2022 (92%, 95%, 93%, 85%, 85%, respectively; P = .0004). Patients meeting criteria for VAE by fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) increased from 2018 to 2022 (9%, 6%, 11%, 17%, 19%, respectively; P = .0002). Manual review of 2022 data indicated opportunities for test stewardship in 8 of 65 patients with cultures (12%). ITS analysis revealed that IVAC+ rates were climbing prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (Fig. 1). We observed a marked increase in rates with the implementation of our new EMR and the changes to our surveillance process (0.32 cases per 100 ventilator days). Manual review of records from 2022 revealed 5 patients in which documentation of ventilator settings to meet VAE diagnosis could not be retrieved from flow sheets. Conclusions: COVID-19 continues to affect VAE despite vaccine availability and may partially account for elevated rates nationwide. However, changes in EMR-automated VAE surveillance may also affect rates. Our findings suggest that automated surveillance captures transient or spurious changes in ventilator machine settings that do not accurately represent clinical status. These data may contribute to spurious increases in VAE. More studies are needed to better understand the impact of both COVID-19 and automated surveillance on VAE.

Disclosures: None

Background: Hand-hygiene technology (HHT) intends to monitor and promote hand washing by healthcare workers, a critical measure of infection control. Healthcare worker noncompliance with HHT is a major limitation to its implementation and utility in clinical settings. We assessed perspectives on HHT in an academic hospital system. Methods: Hand-hygiene team members created an anonymous, 37-question, Likert-scale survey to assess healthcare worker attitudes toward HHT. Surveys targeted nursing staff, advanced practice providers, care partners, and internal medicine physicians. Clinical coordinators from 5 distinct nursing units and 1 physician department emailed surveys to eligible employees. Research coordinators and clinical coordinators also posted a QR code for survey fliers at nursing stations. Results: Overall, 120 surveys were completed. Most surveys were completed by nurses and physicians (66.4% and 14.0%). Most respondents (67.5%) do not find HHT useful. Additionally, 78.3% of respondents believe that HHT does not accurately record hand-washing events. Most (78.3%) do not like using HHT, and 75.8% find it annoying. Only 10.8% believe that patient care suffers because of HHT. Conclusions: Most healthcare workers dislike the HHT badges, primarily due to perceived inaccuracies, lack of utility, burden of use, and pressure to comply. Distrust and effect on patient care do not appear to be substantial factors contributing to negative perceptions of HHT. Weaknesses of the study include overrepresentation of nursing staff and potential bias because respondents may have provided exceptionally negative responses believing it could lead to the removal of HHT.

Disclosures: None

Background: Academic publishing is not exempt from potential structural disparities. We assessed the sex representation among the editors and on editorial boards by their level of influence in the decision of a manuscript of the leading journals focused on infectious diseases and healthcare epidemiology. We also explored whether the sex of the first or last author correlates with the sex of the editors in a convenience sample of these journals. Methods: In a cross-sectional study, the 40 top infectious disease journals (Scimago Journal and Country Rank) and 4 healthcare epidemiology journals were selected. The names and positions of the editorial members were extracted from the journal’s website, and a decision-making level was assigned (ie, editor-in-chief as level 1, board members as level 3). Next, the first and corresponding authors’ names of all 2019 research articles published in a convenience sample of 15 of these journals were retrieved for the second aim. A digital gallery was used to assign one of the binary denominations of woman or man based on the probability that a name was culturally given to a woman or man. Differences were determined by χ2 and linear regression. Results: Overall, 2,416 names were retrieved from the editorial boards of 44 journals; 799 (33%) were assigned as women and 1,617 (67%) as men. The decision-making level showed 70 (3%) at the editor-in-chief level, 756 (31%) at the associate editor level, and 1,600 (66%) as editorial board members. The frequency distribution of assigned gender by decision-making level showed 21 (30%) women and 49 (70%) men at the editor-in-chief level; 263 (35%) women and 493 (65%) men at the associate editor level; 515 (32%) women and 1,075 (68%) men at the editorial board level. Some journals showed an even sex distribution, such as Clinical Infectious Disease or Microbiology Spectrum. However, others were significantly unbalanced. We retrieved 2,725 articles from the convenience sample of infectious disease–focused journals. Women were the first authors in 1,373 (50%) and the last authors in 974 (35%). Editorial board sex composition and sex of authors showed no significant correlation. Trends between infectious disease–focused and healthcare epidemiology–focused journals were similar. Conclusions: Although the data showed uneven sex representation on the editorial boards of infectious disease–focused and healthcare epidemiology–focused journals, there is no apparent vertical segregation or influence on publishing by sex. A generational transition seems to be occurring in editorship and authorship in the field.

Disclosures: None

A multisite research team proposed a survey to assess burnout among healthcare epidemiologists. Anonymous surveys were disseminated to eligible staff at SRN facilities. Half of the respondents were experiencing burnout. Staffing shortages were a key stressor. Allowing healthcare epidemiologists to provide guidance without directly enforcing policies may improve burnout.

Mental fatigue and burnout are concerns for healthcare organizations, but their effects on leaders have not been thoroughly studied. Infectious diseases teams and leaders are at risk for mental fatigue and burnout due to the increased demands from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, additive effects of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (omicron) and δ (delta) variant surges, and unique pre-existing pressures. No single intervention can reduce stress and burnout in healthcare workers. Work-hour limitations may have the biggest impact in physician burnout mitigation. Institutional and individual programs focused on mindfulness may improve well-being in the workplace. Leading during times of stress requires a multimodal approach and an understanding of goals and priorities. Greater awareness of burnout and fatigue across the healthcare spectrum and continued research are required to advance healthcare worker well-being.

One fundamental strategy to address the public health threat of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is improved awareness among the public, prescribers, and policy makers with the aim of engaging these groups to act. World Antimicrobial Awareness Week is an opportunity for concerted and consistent communication regarding practical strategies to prevent and mitigate AMR. We highlight 10 ways for antimicrobial stewards to make the most of World Antimicrobial Awareness Week.