To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure email@example.com
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has demonstrated the importance of stewardship of viral diagnostic tests to aid infection prevention efforts in healthcare facilities. We highlight diagnostic stewardship lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic and discuss how diagnostic stewardship principles can inform management and mitigation of future emerging pathogens in acute-care settings. Diagnostic stewardship during the COVID-19 pandemic evolved as information regarding transmission (eg, routes, timing, and efficiency of transmission) became available. Diagnostic testing approaches varied depending on the availability of tests and when supplies and resources became available. Diagnostic stewardship lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic include the importance of prioritizing robust infection prevention mitigation controls above universal admission testing and considering preprocedure testing, contact tracing, and surveillance in the healthcare facility in certain scenarios. In the future, optimal diagnostic stewardship approaches should be tailored to specific pathogen virulence, transmissibility, and transmission routes, as well as disease severity, availability of effective treatments and vaccines, and timing of infectiousness relative to symptoms. This document is part of a series of papers developed by the Society of Healthcare Epidemiology of America on diagnostic stewardship in infection prevention and antibiotic stewardship.1
On 3–4 October 2022, the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Supportive Care Service and Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences hosted the Third Annual United States (US) Celebration of World Hospice and Palliative Care Day (WHPCD). The purpose of this article is to reflect on the event within the broader context of the international WHPCD theme: “healing hearts and communities.” We describe lessons learned in anticipation of the fourth annual conference to be held on 3–4 October 2023.
Description of the third annual event, conference planning team reflection, and attendee evaluation responses.
The Worldwide Hospice Palliative Care Alliance launched WHPCD in 2005 as an annual unified day of action to celebrate and support hospice and palliative care globally. Since 2020, the conference has attracted an increasing number of attendees from around the world. Two primary aims continue to guide the event: community building and wisdom sharing. Fifty-two interprofessional palliative care experts, advocates, patients, and caregivers provided 13 unique interactive sessions. Four hundred and fifty-eight multidisciplinary registrants from at least 17 countries joined the program. Free registration for colleagues in low- and middle-income countries, students and trainees, and individuals experiencing financial hardship remains a cornerstone of inclusion and equitable access to the event.
Significance of results
The US WHPCD celebration provides a virtual platform that offers opportunities for scientific dissemination and collective reflection on hospice and palliative care delivery amid significant local and global changes in clinical practice, research, policy and advocacy, and population health. We remain committed to ensuring an internationally relevant, culturally diverse, and multidisciplinary agenda that will continue to draw increased participation worldwide during future annual events.
On October 5–6, 2021, the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Supportive Care Service and Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences hosted the 2nd Annual United States (US) Celebration of World Hospice and Palliative Care Day (WHPCD). The purpose of this article is to describe the event within the broader context of the international WHPCD theme: “Leave No One Behind — Equity in Access to Palliative Care.” We reflect on lessons learned in anticipation of the 3rd annual conference to be held October 3–4, 2022.
Description of the 2nd annual event, conference planning team reflection, and attendee evaluation responses.
The Worldwide Hospice Palliative Care Alliance launched WHPCD in 2005 as an annual unified day of action to celebrate and support hospice and palliative care around the world. The 2021 US-based innovative virtual conference featured 37 interprofessional hospice and palliative care specialists and patient and family caregiver speakers across 11 diverse sessions with a focus on health equity and COVID-19 considerations. Two primary aims continue to guide the event: community building and wisdom sharing at the intersection of art and science. 278 registrants from at least 14 countries and 21 different states across the US joined the program, which served as a global debriefing for hospice and palliative care workers from diverse settings, contexts, and disciplines.
Significance of results
The US WHPCD Celebration creates a virtual coming together for collective reflection on hospice and palliative care delivery amid vast changes in clinical practice, research, and policy, both locally and globally. In addition, our goal to ensure an internationally relevant, culturally inclusive, and multidisciplinary agenda will continue to draw increased participation worldwide during future annual events.
Background: Carbapenemase-producing carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CP-CRAB) are a public health threat due to potential for widespread dissemination and limited treatment options. We describe CDC consultations for CP-CRAB to better understand transmission and identify prevention opportunities. Methods: We defined CP-CRAB as CRAB isolates with a molecular test detecting KPC, NDM, VIM, or IMP carbapenemases or a plasmid-mediated oxacillinase (OXA-23, OXA-24/40, OXA-48, OXA-58, OXA-235/237). We reviewed the CDC database of CP-CRAB consultations with health departments from January 1, 2017, through June 1, 2019. Consultations were grouped into 3 categories: multifacility clusters, single-facility clusters, and single cases. We reviewed the size, setting, environmental culturing results, and identified infection control gaps for each consultation. Results: We identified 29 consultations involving 294 patients across 19 states. Among 9 multifacility clusters, the median number of patients was 12 (range, 2–87) and the median number of facilities was 2 (range, 2–6). Among 9 single-facility clusters, the median number of patients was 5 (range, 2–50). The most common carbapenemase was OXA-23 (Table 1). Moreover, 16 consultations involved short-stay acute-care hospitals, and 6 clusters involved ICUs and/or burn units. Also, 8 consultations involved skilled nursing facilities. Environmental sampling was performed in 3 consultations; CP-CRAB was recovered from surfaces of portable, shared equipment (3 consultations), inside patient rooms (3 consultations) and nursing stations (2 consultations). Lapses in environmental cleaning and interfacility communication were common across consultations. Among 11 consultations for single CP-CRAB cases, contact screening was performed in 7 consultations and no additional CP-CRAB was identified. All 4 patients with NDM-producing CRAB reported recent international travel. Conclusions: Consultations for clusters of oxacillinase-producing CP-CRAB were most often requested in hospitals and skilled nursing facilities. Healthcare facilities and public health authorities should be vigilant for possible spread of CP-CRAB via shared equipment and the potential for CP-CRAB spread to connected healthcare facilities.
Background: Due to limited therapeutic options and potential for spread, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE)-producing New Delhi metallo-β-lactamases (NDMs) are a public health priority. We investigated the epidemiology of NDM-producing CRE reported to the CDC to clarify its distribution and relative prevalence. Methods: The CDC’s Antibiotic Resistance Laboratory Network supports molecular testing of CRE for 5 carbapenemases nationally. Although KPC is the most common carbapenemase in the United States, non-KPC carbapenemases are a growing concern. We analyzed CRE with any of 4 non-KPC plasmid-mediated carbapenemases (NDM, VIM, IMP, or OXA-48 type) isolated from specimens collected from January 1, 2017, through June 30, 2019; only a patient’s first isolate per organism–carbapenemase combination was included. We excluded isolates from specimen sources associated with colonization screening (eg, perirectal). We compared the proportion of NDM-producing CRE to all non-KPC–producing CP-CRE between period A (January to June 2018) and period B (January to June 2019). Health departments and the CDC collected additional exposure and molecular information in selected states to better describe current NDM-producing CRE epidemiology. Results: Overall, 47 states reported 1,013 non–KPC-producing CP-CRE (range/state, 1–109 isolates; median, 11 isolates); 46 states reported 631 NDM-producing CRE (range/state, 1–84; median, 6). NDM-producing CRE increased quarterly from the third quarter of 2018 through the second quarter of 2019; CP-CRE isolates with other non-KPC carbapenemases remained stable (Fig. 1). In period A, 124 of 216 emerging CP-CRE had NDM (57.1%), compared with 255 of 359 emerging CP-CRE (71.0%) during period B (P = .1179). Among NDM-producing CRE, the proportion of Enterobacter spp increased from 10.5% in 2018 to 18.4% in 2019 (P = .0467) (Fig. 2). In total, 18 states reported more NDM-producing CRE in the first 6 months of 2019 than in all of 2018. Connecticut, Ohio, and Oregon were among states that conducted detailed investigations; these 3 states identified 24 NDM-producing CRE isolates from 23 patients in period B. Overall, 5 (21.7%) of 22 patients with history available traveled internationally ≤12 months prior to culture; 17 (73.9%) acquired NDM-producing CRE domestically. Among 15 isolates sequenced, 8 (53.3%) carried NDM-5 (6 E. coli, 1 Enterobacter spp and 1 Klebsiella spp) and 7 (46.7%) carried NDM-1 (6 Enterobacter spp and 1 Klebsiella spp). Species were diverse; no single strain type was shared by >2 isolates. Conclusions: Detection of NDM-producing CRE has increased across the AR Lab Network. Among states with detailed information available, domestic acquisition was common, and no single variant or strain predominated. Aggressive public health response and further understanding of current US NDM-CRE epidemiology are needed to prevent further spread.
Background: Microbiology data are utilized to quantify epidemiology and trends in pathogens, antimicrobial resistance, and bloodstream infections. Understanding variability and trends in rates of hospital-level blood culture utilization may be important for interpreting these findings. Methods: We used clinical microbiology results and discharge data to identify monthly blood culture rates from US hospitals participating in the Premier Healthcare Database during 2012–2017. We included all discharges from months where a hospital reported at least 1 blood culture with microbiology and antimicrobial susceptibility results. Blood cultures drawn on or before day 3 were defined as admission cultures (ACs); blood cultures collected after day 3 were defined as a postadmission cultures (PACs). The AC rate was defined as the proportion of all hospitalizations with an AC. The PAC rate was defined as the number of days with a PAC among all patient days. Generalized estimating equation regression models that accounted for hospital-level clustering with an exchangeable correlation matrix were used to measure associations of monthly rates with hospital bed size, teaching status, urban–rural designation, region, month, and year. The AC rates were modeled using logistic regression, and the PAC rates were modeled using a Poisson distribution. Results: We included 11.7 million hospitalizations from 259 hospitals, accounting for nearly 52 million patient days. The median annual hospital-level AC rate was 27.1%, with interhospital variation ranging from 21.1% (quartile 1) to 35.2% (quartile 3) (Fig. 1). Multivariable models revealed no significant trends over time (P = .74), but statistically significant associations between AC rates with month (P < .001) and region (P = .003), associations with teaching status (P = .063), and urban-rural designation (P = .083) approached statistical significance. There was no association with bed size (P = .38). The median annual hospital-level PAC rate was 11.1 per 1,000 patient days, and interhospital variability ranged from 7.6 (quartile 1) to 15.2 (quartile 3) (Fig. 2). Multivariable models of PAC rates showed no significant trends over time (P = .12). We found associations between PAC rates with month (P = .016), bed size (P = .030), and teaching status (P = .040). PAC rates were not associated with urban–rural designation (P = .52) or region (P = .29). Conclusions: Blood culture utilization rates in this large cohort of hospitals were unchanged between 2012 and 2017, though substantial interhospital variability was detected. Although both AC and PAC rates vary by time of year and potentially by teaching status, AC rates vary by geographic characteristics whereas PAC rates vary by bed size. These factors are important to consider when comparing rates of bloodstream infections by hospital.
We describe transmission of Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase-producing Escherichia coli sequence type (ST) 1193 in a group home. E. coli ST1193 is an emerging multidrug-resistant clone not previously shown to carry carbapenemases in the United States. Our investigation illustrates the potential of residential group homes to amplify rare combinations of pathogens and resistance mechanisms.
To facilitate surveillance and describe the burden of healthcare-associated infection (HAI) in nursing homes (NHs), we compared the quality of resident-level data collected by NH personnel and external staff.
A 1-day point-prevalence survey
SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS
Overall, 9 nursing homes among 4 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Emerging Infection Program (EIP) sites were included in this study.
NH personnel collected data on resident characteristics, clinical risk factors for HAIs, and the presence of 3 HAI screening criteria on the day of the survey. Trained EIP surveillance officers collected the same data elements via retrospective medical chart review for comparison; surveillance officers also collected available data to identify HAIs (using revised McGeer definitions). Overall agreement was calculated among residents identified by both teams with selected risk factors and HAI screening criteria. The impact of using NH personnel to collect screening criteria on HAI prevalence was assessed.
The overall prevalence of clinical risk factors among the 1,272 residents was similar between NH personnel and surveillance officers, but the level of positive agreement (residents with factors identified by both teams) varied between 39% and 87%. Surveillance officers identified 253 residents (20%) with ≥1 HAI screening criterion, resulting in 67 residents with an HAI (5.3 per 100 residents). The NH personnel identified 152 (12%) residents with ≥1 HAI screening criterion; 42 residents had an HAI (3.5 per 100 residents).
We identified discrepancies in resident-level data collection between surveillance officers and NH personnel, resulting in varied estimates of the HAI prevalence. These findings have important implications for the design and implementation of future HAI prevalence surveys.
We assessed the impact of a reflex urine culture protocol, an intervention aimed to reduce unnecessary urine culturing, in intensive care units at a tertiary care hospital. Significant decreases in urine culturing rates and reported rates of catheter-associated urinary tract infection followed implementation of the protocol.
To offer antimicrobial stewardship to a long-term acute care hospital using telemedicine.
We conducted an uninterrupted time-series analysis to measure the impact of antimicrobial stewardship on hospital-acquired Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) rates and antimicrobial use. Simple linear regression was used to analyze changes in antimicrobial use; Poisson regression was used to estimate the incidence rate ratio in CDI rates. The preimplementation period was April 1, 2010–March 31, 2011; the postimplementation period was April 1, 2011–March 31, 2014.
During the preimplementation period, total antimicrobial usage was 266 defined daily doses (DDD)/1,000 patient-days (PD); it rose 4.54 (95% CI, −0.19 to 9.28) per month then significantly decreased from preimplementation to postimplementation (−6.58 DDD/1,000 PD [95% CI, −11.48 to −1.67]; P=.01). The same trend was observed for antibiotics against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (−2.97 DDD/1,000 PD per month [95% CI, −5.65 to −0.30]; P=.03). There was a decrease in usage of anti-CDI antibiotics by 50.4 DDD/1,000 PD per month (95% CI, −71.4 to −29.2; P<.001) at program implementation that was maintained afterwards. Anti-Pseudomonas antibiotics increased after implementation (30.6 DDD/1,000 PD per month [95% CI, 4.9–56.3]; P=.02) but with ongoing education this trend reversed. Intervention was associated with a decrease in hospital-acquired CDI (incidence rate ratio, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.35–0.92]; P=.02).
Antimicrobial stewardship using an electronic medical record via remote access led to a significant decrease in antibacterial usage and a decrease in CDI rates.
Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2016;37(4):433–439
To determine the impact of mucosal barrier injury laboratory-confirmed bloodstream infections (MBI-LCBIs) on central-line–associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) rates during the first year of MBI-LCBI reporting to the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN)
Descriptive analysis of 2013 NHSN data
Selected inpatient locations in acute care hospitals
A descriptive analysis of MBI-LCBI cases was performed. CLABSI rates per 1,000 central-line days were calculated with and without the inclusion of MBI-LCBIs in the subset of locations reporting ≥1 MBI-LCBI, and in all locations (regardless of MBI-LCBI reporting) to determine rate differences overall and by location type.
From 418 locations in 252 acute care hospitals reporting ≥1 MBI-LCBIs, 3,162 CLABSIs were reported; 1,415 (44.7%) met the MBI-LCBI definition. Among these locations, removing MBI-LCBI from the CLABSI rate determination produced the greatest CLABSI rate decreases in oncology (49%) and ward locations (45%). Among all locations reporting CLABSI data, including those reporting no MBI-LCBIs, removing MBI-LCBI reduced rates by 8%. Here, the greatest decrease was in oncology locations (38% decrease); decreases in other locations ranged from 1.2% to 4.2%.
An understanding of the potential impact of removing MBI-LCBIs from CLABSI data is needed to accurately interpret CLABSI trends over time and to inform changes to state and federal reporting programs. Whereas the MBI-LCBI definition may have a large impact on CLABSI rates in locations where patients with certain clinical conditions are cared for, the impact of MBI-LCBIs on overall CLABSI rates across inpatient locations appears to be more modest.
Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) are critically important for combating the emergence of antimicrobial resistance. Despite this, there are no regulatory requirements at a national level, which makes initiatives at the state level critical. The objectives of this study were to identify existing antimicrobial stewardship practices, characterize barriers to antimicrobial stewardship implementation in acute care hospitals throughout Massachusetts, and evaluate the impact on these hospitals of a state-sponsored educational conference on antimicrobial stewardship.
In September 2011, a state-sponsored educational program entitled “Building Stewardship: A Team Approach Enhancing Antibiotic Stewardship in Acute Care Hospitals” was offered to interested practitioners from throughout the state. The program consisted of 2 audio conferences, reading materials, and a 1-day conference consisting of lectures focusing on the importance of ASPs, strategies for implementation, improvement strategies for existing programs, and panel discussions highlighting successful practices. Smaller breakout sessions focused on operational issues, including understanding of pharmacodynamics, business models, and electronic surveillance.