Background: During this pandemic, the public has struggled to navigate the abundance of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation, and it is unclear how this misinformation has affected medical providers and their recommendations for patients. We sought to understand differences in COVID-19 vaccine knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes among Oregon healthcare provider types and regions of practice (rural, suburban, urban). Methods: A 36-question survey was constructed using Qualtrics with consultation from a survey methodologist. The survey was reviewed and approved by OHSU IRB and distributed via listserv or social media posting to provider societies in Oregon, including nurse practitioners (NPs), naturopathic doctors (NDs), physician assistants (PAs), doctors of medicine (MDs), doctors of osteopathic medicine (DOs), or practioners with a bachelor of medicine–bachelor of surgery (MBBS), and via the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) immunization practice listserv. The survey accepted responses from July 9 to August 12, 2021. Participants were volunteers and responses were anonymous. Results: We collected 101 responses. Among them, 87 participants completed 100% of survey questions. Survey respondents were predominantly White females aged 41–50 years with an MD, DO, or MBBS. The overall COVID-19 vaccination rate of respondents was 94.6%. The vaccination rate was highest among the 4 NDs and 7 PAs at 100%, followed by 78 MDs, DOs, and MBBSs at 96.2%, and 12 NPs at 75%. Of NP respondents, 67% practiced rurally; 25.6% of MDs, DOs, and MBBSs practiced rurally; and 25% of NDs and 28.6% of PAs practiced rurally. In total, 22% of NPs did not feel comfortable recommending the COVID-19 vaccine to patients, compared to 1% of MDs, DOs, and MBBSs and 0% of NDs or PAs. All provider types had high rates of disagreement with the statement that the COVID-19 pandemic had increased their trust in vaccine safety: 44% of NPs; 29% of PAs; 25% of NDs; and 7% of MDs, DOs, and MBBSs. Among 19 rural providers, 19% indicated mistrust in public health to ensure that vaccines are safe versus 3% in suburban areas and 0% in urban areas. Conclusions: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is prevalent among healthcare providers and may be higher in NPs and those practicing rurally. Unfortunately, the response rate of NPs was low. Future research should focus on these providers to better understand their knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes about COVID-19 vaccines. These results can also inform future targeted vaccine education to healthcare providers during public health crises.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

Background: Healthcare facilities have experienced many challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, including limited personal protective equipment (PPE) supplies. Healthcare personnel (HCP) rely on PPE, vaccines, and other infection control measures to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections. We describe PPE concerns reported by HCP who had close contact with COVID-19 patients in the workplace and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Method: The CDC collaborated with Emerging Infections Program (EIP) sites in 10 states to conduct surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 infections in HCP. EIP staff interviewed HCP with positive SARS-CoV-2 viral tests (ie, cases) to collect data on demographics, healthcare roles, exposures, PPE use, and concerns about their PPE use during COVID-19 patient care in the 14 days before the HCP’s SARS-CoV-2 positive test. PPE concerns were qualitatively coded as being related to supply (eg, low quality, shortages); use (eg, extended use, reuse, lack of fit test); or facility policy (eg, lack of guidance). We calculated and compared the percentages of cases reporting each concern type during the initial phase of the pandemic (April–May 2020), during the first US peak of daily COVID-19 cases (June–August 2020), and during the second US peak (September 2020–January 2021). We compared percentages using mid-P or Fisher exact tests (α = 0.05). Results: Among 1,998 HCP cases occurring during April 2020–January 2021 who had close contact with COVID-19 patients, 613 (30.7%) reported ≥1 PPE concern (Table 1). The percentage of cases reporting supply or use concerns was higher during the first peak period than the second peak period (supply concerns: 12.5% vs 7.5%; use concerns: 25.5% vs 18.2%; p Conclusions: Although lower percentages of HCP cases overall reported PPE concerns after the first US peak, our results highlight the importance of developing capacity to produce and distribute PPE during times of increased demand. The difference we observed among selected groups of cases may indicate that PPE access and use were more challenging for some, such as nonphysicians and nursing home HCP. These findings underscore the need to ensure that PPE is accessible and used correctly by HCP for whom use is recommended.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

Healthcare personnel with severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection were interviewed to describe activities and practices in and outside the workplace. Among 2,625 healthcare personnel, workplace-related factors that may increase infection risk were more common among nursing-home personnel than hospital personnel, whereas selected factors outside the workplace were more common among hospital personnel.

The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) guideline “Infection Prevention and Control in Residential Facilities for Pediatric Patients and Their Families” is the first infection prevention and control (IPC) guideline to address preventing transmission of infectious agents in “home away from home” residential settings, of which the Ronald McDonald Houses (RMHs) serve as a prototype. These types of facilities provide support services, including overnight lodging, for ill and injured children and their families. Food preparation occurs in common areas, and cleaning of rooms or apartments is performed by the occupants during their stay and before departure. Pediatric patients are frequent guests of the family-centered facilities while receiving or recovering from specialized medical therapy. Examples of high-risk populations served in these facilities include families of patients with cancer, recipients of stem cell or solid organ transplants, surgical and/or very-low-birthweight infants who receive care in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs), those with cystic fibrosis, and women with high-risk pregnancies awaiting delivery in a nearby medical center. Such facilities are located worldwide and vary in their physical structure and the predominant population served.

We surveyed Ronald McDonald Houses (RMHs) to assess infection prevention and control (IPC) practices. A diverse patient population is served by RMH. Most sites have locally written IPC guidelines, and consultation resources vary, increasing the potential for inconsistent IPC practices. RMH would benefit from a standardized IPC guideline.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2012;33(3):299-301