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 firstname.lastname@example.org
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.
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.
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.
Background:Staphylococcus aureus is the leading cause of joint infections. These infections may arise in native or prosthetic joints. Previous analysis of population-based surveillance has documented racial differences in incidence of invasive S. aureus bloodstream infections. We hypothesized that racial differences in incidence would not persist among of S. aureus joint infections. Methods: We utilized data from the Georgia Emerging Infections Program (GA EIP), which conducts CDC-funded active, population-based surveillance for iSA within the 8-county area of Atlanta. Cases were defined as residents of the surveillance area with S. aureus isolated during 2016–2018 from joint fluid or tissue, and cultures within a 30-day period after the initial culture date were considered a single case. Age- and race-specific incidence were calculated using US census data; incidence rate ratios (RR) and adjusted rate ratios (aRR) were calculated using the Mantel-Hanzel method. Results: Between 2016 and 2018, 500 iSA joint infections were identified (iMRSA, 28.2% and iMSSA, 71.8%): 34.4% occurred in black patients and 65.6% occurred in white patients. Also, 90 cases (18%) had a bloodstream infection (BSI) within 30 days of the joint infection. Incidence of iSA joint infections dropped 22% from 9.4 per 100,000 in 2016 to 7.5 per 100,000 in 2018 (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.7–0.9). Adjusting for year, incidence was 40% lower among blacks than whites (RR, 0.6,; 95% CI, 0.5–0.7); this finding was attributed to blacks having 60% lower incidence of iMSSA joint infections compared to whites (aRR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.3–0.5) but similar MRSA incidence (aRR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.8–1.6). The highest incidence was observed among whites aged >65 years with iMSSA infections (30.2 per 100,000) (Fig. 1). Among cases with a full chart review (n = 138), surgery in the prior 90 days was uncommon (n = 42, 30.4%), and a preceding major orthopedic procedure was even more rare (n = 13, 9.4%). Antecedent therapeutic injections and arthroscopic procedures are under investigation. Conclusions: Unlike S. aureus bacteremia, where previous analysis demonstrates higher incidences among blacks predominantly due to MRSA, our data demonstrate that the incidence of S. aureus joint infections is higher in whites, predominantly due to MSSA. Investigations in differential practices regarding orthopedic illness and injury should be pursued.
Disclosures: Scott Fridkin reports that his spouse receives consulting fees from the vaccine industry.
We surveyed 399 US acute care hospitals regarding availability of on-site Legionella testing; 300 (75.2%) did not offer Legionella testing on site. Availability varied according to hospital size and geographic location. On-site access to testing may improve detection of Legionnaires disease and inform patient management and prevention efforts.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014;35(7):898–900
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.