Our surveys of nurses modeled after the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Model of Behavior (COM-B model) revealed that opportunity and motivation factors heavily influence urine-culture practices (behavior), in addition to knowledge (capability). Understanding these barriers is a critical step towards implementing targeted interventions to improving urine-culture practices.

After implementing a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection prevention bundle, the incidence rate ratio (IRR) of non–severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (non–SARS-CoV-2) hospital-acquired respiratory viral infection (HA-RVI) was significantly lower than the IRR from the pre–COVID-19 period (IRR, 0.322; 95% CI, 0.266–0.393; P < .01). However, HA-RVIs incidence rates mirrored community RVI trends, suggesting that hospital interventions alone did not significantly affect HA-RVI incidence.

Background: Central-line–associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) arise from bacteria migrating from the skin along the catheter, by direct inoculation, or from pathogens that form biofilms on the interior surface of the catheter. However, given the oxygen-poor environments that obligate anaerobes require, these organisms are unlikely to survive long enough on the skin or on the catheter after direct inoculation to be the true cause of a CLABSI. Although some anaerobic CLABSIs may meet the definition for a mucosal-barrier-injury, laboratory-confirmed, bloodstream infection (MBI-LCBI), some may be not. We sought to determine the proportion of CLABSIs attributed to obligate anaerobic bacteria, and we sought to determine the pathophysiologic source of these infections. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected CLABSI data at 54 hospitals (academic and community) in the southeastern United States from January 2015 to December 2020. We performed chart reviews on a convenient sample for which medical records were available. We calculated the proportion of CLABSIs due to obligate anaerobes, and we have described a subset of anaerobic CLABSI cases. Results: We identified 60 anaerobic CLABSIs of 2,430 CLABSIs (2.5%). Of the 60 anaerobic CLABSIs, 7 were polymicrobial with nonanaerobic bacteria. The most common species we identified were Bacteroides, Clostridium, and Lactobacillus (Table 1). The proportion of anaerobic CLABSIs per year varied from 1.2% to 3.7% (Fig. 1). Of 60 anaerobic CLABSIs, 29 (48%) occurred in the only quaternary-care academic medical center in the database. In contrast, an average of 0.6 (SD, 0.6) anaerobic CLABSIs occurred in the 53 community hospitals over the 6-year study period. Of these 29 anaerobic CLABSIs, 23 (79%) were clinically consistent with secondary bloodstream infections (BSIs) due to gastrointestinal or genitourinary source, but they lacked appropriate documentation to meet NHSN criteria for secondary BSI or MBI-LCBI based on case reviews by infection prevention physicians. The other 6 anaerobic CLABSIs did not have a clear clinical etiology and did not meet MBI-LCBI criteria. In addition, 27 (93%) of 29 anaerobic CLABSIs occurred in patients who were either solid-organ transplant recipients, were stem-cell transplant recipients, or were receiving chemotherapy. Lastly, 27 (93%) of 29 anaerobic CLABSIs were treated with antibiotics. Conclusions: Anaerobic CLABSIs are uncommon events, but CLABSI may disproportionately affect large, academic hospitals caring for a high proportion of medically complex patients. Additional criteria could be added to the MBI-LCBI to better classify anaerobic BSI.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

Background: Racial and ethnic disparities in healthcare access, medical treatment, and outcomes have been extensively reported. However, the impact of racial and ethnic differences in patient safety, including healthcare-associated infections, has not been well described. Methods: We performed a retrospective review analyzing prospectively collected data on central-line–associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) and catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) rates per 1,000 device days. Data for adult patients admitted to an academic medical center between 2018 and 2021 were stratified by 7 racial and ethnic groups: non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic/Latino, Asian, American Indian/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and othe. The “other” group was composed of bi- or multiracial patients, or those for whom no data were reported. We compared the CLABSI and CAUTI rates between the different racial and ethnic groups using Poisson regression. Results: Compared to non-Hispanic White patients, the rate of CLABSI was significantly higher in non-Hispanic Black patients (1.27; 95% CI, 1.02–1.58; P < .03) and those in the “other” race category (1.79; 95% CI, 1.39–2.30; P < .001, respectively), and these trends increased in Hispanic/Latino patients (Table 1). Similarly, Black patients had higher rates of CAUTI (1.42; 95% CI, 1.05–1.92; P < .02), as did Asian patients (2.49; 95% CI, 1.16–5.36; P < .02), and patients in the “other” category (1.52; 95% CI, 1.06–2.18; P < .02) (Table 2). Conclusions: Racial and ethnic minorities may be vulnerable to a higher rate of patient safety events, including CLABSIs and CAUTIs. Additional analyses controlling for potential confounding factors are needed to better understand the relationship between race or ethnicity, clinical management, and healthcare-associated infections. This evaluation is essential to inform mitigation strategies and to provide optimum, equitable care for all.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

We performed surveillance for hospital-acquired COVID-19 (HA-COVID-19) and compared time-based, electronic definitions to real-time adjudication of the most likely source of acquisition. Without real-time adjudication, nearly 50% of HA-COVID-19 cases identified using electronic definitions were misclassified. Both electronic and traditional contact tracing methods likely underestimated the incidence of HA-COVID-19.

Background: We evaluated the impact of a comprehensive SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) infection prevention (IP) bundle on rates of non–COVID-19 healthcare-acquired respiratory viral infection (HA-RVI). Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected respiratory viral data using an infection prevention database from April 2017 to January 2021. We defined HA-RVI as identification of a respiratory virus via nasal or nasopharyngeal swabs collected on or after hospital day 7 for COVID-19 and non–COVID-19 RVI. We compared incident rate ratios (IRRs) of HA-RVI for each of the 3 years (April 2017 to March 2020) prior to and 10 months (April 2020 to January 2021) following full implementation of a comprehensive COVID-19 IP bundle at Duke University Health System. The COVID-19 IP bundle consists of the following elements: universal masking; eye protection; employee, patient, and visitor symptom screening; contact tracing; admission and preprocedure testing; visitor restrictions; discouraging presenteeism; population density control and/or physical distancing; and ongoing attention to basic horizontal IP strategies including hand hygiene, PPE compliance, and environmental cleaning. Results: During the study period, we identified 715 HA-RVIs over 1,899,700 inpatient days, for an overall incidence rate of 0.38 HA-RVI per 1,000 inpatient days. The HA-RVI IRR was significantly higher during each of the 3 years prior to implementing the COVID-19 IP bundle (Table 1). The incidence rate of HA-RVI decreased by 60% after bundle implementation. COVID-19 became the dominant HA-RVI, and no cases of HA-influenza occurred in the postimplementation period (Figure 1). Conclusions: Implementation of a comprehensive COVID-19 IP bundle likely contributed to a reduction in HA-RVI for hospitalized patients in our healthcare system. Augmenting traditional IP interventions in place during the annual respiratory virus season may be a future strategy to reduce rates of HA-RVI for inpatients.

Table 1.

Figure 1.

The paradoxical relationship between standardized infection ratio and standardized utilization ratio for catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) in contrast to central-line–associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs), in addition to CAUTI definition challenges, incentivizes hospitals to focus their prevention efforts on urine culture stewardship rather than catheter avoidance and care.

Background: The Surgical Care Improvement Project 9 (SCIP 9) mandates the removal of urinary catheters within 48 hours following surgery to reduce the risk of catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs). Although patients with thoracic epidurals are not exempt from SCIP 9, these patients may be inherently different from other surgical patients. Early removal of Foley catheters may cause urinary retention and recatheterization, which in turn can lead to CAUTI or urethral trauma. Our hospital’s current policy is to allow Foley catheters to remain in place until the thoracic epidural is removed. The goal of our study was to identify and compare the rate of CAUTI in patients with thoracic epidural catheters to the rate of CAUTI in patients without thoracic epidural catheters Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with and without thoracic epidurals who had Foley catheters during hospitalization from July 1, 2017, to May 31, 2019. We used descriptive statistics to compare CAUTI rates based on unit between the 2 groups of patients. Results: We identified 1,834 unique patients with thoracic epidurals and urinary catheters during the study period. We found 4 CAUTIs of 9,896 catheter days (0.4 CAUTIs per 1,000 catheter days) in patients with epidural catheters and 43 CAUTIs of 36,809 catheter days (1.17 CAUTI per 1,000 catheter days) in patients without thoracic epidurals for a rate ratio of 0.346 (95% CI, 0.1242– 0.9639; P < .03). We conducted a sensitivity analysis on a subset of patients admitted under the cardiothoracic service and compared the patients with Foley catheters with and without thoracic epidurals. In this subset, we found 1 CAUTI in 5,890 catheter days (0.17 CAUTI per 1,000 catheter days) in patients with thoracic epidurals and 4 CAUTIs in 9,429 catheter days (0.42 CAUTIs per 1,000 catheter days) in patients without thoracic epidurals), for a rate of 0.4002 (95% CI, 0.0447–3.5808; P < .39). In this subgroup, 7.0% of patients with thoracic epidurals required a second Foley catheter compared to 16.9% of patients without thoracic epidurals who required a second Foley catheter (P < .01). Conclusions: Although patients with thoracic epidurals maintain Foley catheters beyond 48 hours, the CAUTI rate in these patients is lower than in patients without thoracic epidurals. Therefore, removing Foley catheters within 48 hours of surgery in patients with thoracic epidurals may not reduce the risk of CAUTI and, in fact, could be harmful. Further evaluation of confounding variables is warranted.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

Background: Reflex urine cultures (RUCs) have the potential to reduce unnecessary urine cultures and antibiotic use. However, urinalysis parameters that best predict true infection are unknown. In this study, we surveyed different RUC practices in laboratories across a regional network of community hospitals. Methods: We conducted a voluntary electronic survey of infection preventionists to describe laboratory practices relating to RUCs across 51 community hospitals in the Duke Infection Control Outreach Network (DICON) between May 15, 2019, and July 3, 2019. Results: We received 51 responses (response rate, 100%). Most hospital laboratories were located in North Carolina (n = 25, 49%) and Georgia (n = 18, 35%); 28 laboratories (55%) incorporated RUCs. Surveyed laboratories accepted urine samples from any source and various collection methods (eg, indwelling catheter specimens, clean catch specimens). Moreover, 24 laboratories (86%) offered RUCs for all patients, whereas 4 laboratories (14%) restricted RUCs to specific populations (ie, outpatient, emergency room or children). We observed wide variability in the urinalysis criteria used for RUCs (Table 1); 26 unique approaches were used among 28 laboratories. Also, 24 laboratories (86%) used multiple criteria and 4 (14%) used 1 criterion. Of those that used multiple criteria, all 24 proceeded to RUC if at least 1 UA criterion was met. Furthermore, 22 laboratories (79%) incorporated the presence of nitrites as a urinalysis criterion; 21 laboratories (75%) incorporated white blood cell count (WBC) as a criterion. The most frequent WBC cutoffs were “≥5” (n = 11, 39%) and “≥10” (n = 7, 25%). In addition, 21 laboratories (75%) incorporated leukocyte esterase as a urinalysis criterion, with criteria including “positive” (n = 15, 54%), “trace” (n = 4, 14%), “moderate” (n = 1, 4%), and “large” (n = 1, 4%). Also, 17 (61%) laboratories incorporated magnitude of bacteriuria as a urinalysis criterion. The cutoff ranged from “few” (n = 8, 29%), “moderate” (n = 7, 25%), to “many” (n = 2, 7%). Another 3 (11%) laboratories incorporated other criteria: presence of blood (n = 2, 7%) and presence of fungal elements (n = 1, 4%). Only 3 (11%) laboratories utilized epithelial cells as an exclusion criterion where urinalysis would not proceed to culture if epithelial cells in urinalysis samples exceeded the designated limit, ranging from “>5” to “>15”. Conclusions: More than half of the hospitals in our community hospital network utilize RUCs, but criteria varied widely. Future epidemiological research should aim to identify ideal urinalysis parameters as well as specific patient populations that safely benefit from RUC strategies.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

Background: The standardized infection ratio (SIR) is the nationally adopted metric used to track and compare catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) and central-line– associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs). Despite its widespread use, the SIR may not be suitable for all settings and may not capture all catheter harm. Our objective was to look at the correlation between SIR and device use for CAUTIs and CLABSIs across community hospitals in a regional network. Methods: We compared SIR and SUR (standardized utilization ratio) for CAUTIs and CLABSIs across 43 hospitals in the Duke Infection Control Outreach Network (DICON) using a scatter plot and calculated an R2 value. Hospitals were stratified into large (>70,000 patient days), medium (30,000–70,000 patient days), and small hospitals (<30,000 patient days) based on DICON’s benchmarking for community hospitals. Results: We reviewed 24 small, 11 medium, and 8 large hospitals within DICON. Scatter plots for comparison of SIRs and SURs for CLABSIs and CAUTIs across our network hospitals are shown in Figs. 1 and 2. We detected a weak positive overall correlation between SIR and SUR for CLABSIs (0.33; R2 = 0.11), but no correlation between SIR and SUR for CAUTIs (−0.07; R2 = 0.00). Of 15 hospitals with SUR >1, 7 reported SIR <1 for CLABSIs, whereas 10 of 13 hospitals with SUR >1 reported SIR <1 for CAUTIs. Smaller hospitals showed a better correlation for CLABSI SIR and SUR (0.37) compared to medium and large hospitals (0.19 and 0.22, respectively). Conversely, smaller hospitals showed no correlation between CAUTI SIR and SUR, whereas medium and larger hospitals showed a negative correlation (−0.31 and −0.39, respectively). Conclusions: Our data reveal a weak positive correlation between SIR and SUR for CLABSIs, suggesting that central line use impacts CLABSI SIR to some extent. However, we detected no correlation between SIR and SUR for CAUTIs in smaller hospitals and a negative correlation for medium and large hospitals. Some hospitals with low CAUTI SIRs might actually have higher device use, and vice versa. Therefore, the SIR alone does not adequately reflect preventable harm related to urinary catheters. Public reporting of SIR may incentivize hospitals to focus more on urine culture stewardship rather than reducing device utilization.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

We implemented universal severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing of patients undergoing surgical procedures as a means to conserve personal protective equipment (PPE). The rate of asymptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was <0.5%, which suggests that early local public health interventions were successful. Although our protocol was resource intensive, it prevented exposures to healthcare team members.