Background: For United States healthcare programs to be fully compliant with Joint Commission National Patient Safety Goal (NPSG) #7, organizations must implement and maintain a hand hygiene (HH) program that follows either the current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or the current World Health Organization (WHO) HH guidelines. Joint Commission standard IC.03.01.01 requires these organizations to provide metrics that evaluate the effectiveness of their program and program goals. Our center utilizes the direct observation method with the use of over 550 Hand Hygiene Observers (HHO) to collect our HH compliance. HHO are trained with a computer-based course that requires passing a post-education test. During fiscal year 2023 (FY23), Infection Control surveillance noted an increase in hospital-acquired infections (HAI) Clostridioides difficile infections (CDI), catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI), and multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO) on our hematologic malignancy units (HM), which initiated an Infection Control (IC) investigation into possible causes. Increased rounding by our Infection Preventionist (IP) observed that HH compliance was much lower than unit HHO reported rates. Inquiries into this data discrepancy revealed barriers to accurate reporting, including HHO having low confidence in identifying and reporting non-compliant behavior. To that end, we conducted mandatory re-training of all HM HHO with the primary goal of improving the quality of our HH compliance data and addressing barriers with non-compliance reporting. Our secondary goal was to identify areas of improvement in institutional HH rates. Methods: In August 2023, 252 HM staff and HHO received detailed, in-person retraining by the HM IP. Training included reviewing the discrepancy in HHO and IP observations, potential causes of discrepancy, most commonly missed HH opportunities, examples of correct and incorrect HH practices, and addressing staff questions. Results: Following mandatory re-training of HM HHO, HH compliance for our HM units from September 2023 – December 2023 ranged from 89% to 98%, with increased reporting of non-compliance (Figure 1). A detailed dashboard was created that focused on HM HH compliance, containing the HHO observations and non-compliant reports. Conclusion: A one-time in-person retraining of HM HHO by our IP has led to an improvement in data quality, which is imperative for future quality improvement initiatives. Improving our HH data quality allowed IC to identify and provide actionable feedback to HM leaders, create targeted interventions to improve HAI rates, and improve patient safety. Future goals include retaining of all HHO and a HH campaign to ensure patient safety across our institution.

Background: Alberta Health Services (AHS) measures hand hygiene compliance through direct observations performed by trained site-based reviewers (SBRs) and facilitated by the Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) program. Within AHS there are >100 acute care facilities, ranging in bed size from four beds to more than 1,000, with catchment populations ranging from one million. A time-in-motion study using trained AHS IPC staff was proposed to validate the completeness and accuracy of data being collected by the SBRs. Methods: The AHS IPC staff performed direct observations at pre-selected facilities across all five zones and four different unit types (emergency, medical, surgical, and intensive care) for four 30-minute periods during weekdays between June and September 2023. An iPad app was used to capture results from all four moments of hand hygiene. The reviewer indicated the day and time of the review and captured as many representative hand hygiene moments and healthcare providers as possible. The distributions of the four moments of hand hygiene, healthcare provider group and overall compliance were compared at the unit type and facility level (tertiary, large urban, regional, pediatric, and small sites) between this time-in-motion study and SBR data collected June-September 2023. Results: The study collected 175 reviews and 4,683 observations from 14 facilities and 48 units. Between June and September 2023, SBRs collected 2,625 reviews and 61,506 observations from these same facility and unit types. Across all facility and unit types, the distribution of the four moments was similar between the study and SBRs. Similar proportions of healthcare providers were also observed. However, the overall hand hygiene compliance collected in the study was approximately 10% lower across all unit types as compared to that collected by the SBRs (study: 63%-84%; SBRs: 75%-92%). Conclusions: In public health surveillance, completeness and accuracy are two characteristics of high-quality data. A time-in-motion study identified that the hand hygiene observations collected by SBRs were complete, as the range of healthcare providers observed, and the distribution of their moments, mirrored that collected in the study. However, the SBRs reported higher compliance than the study participants and the true hand hygiene compliance is likely lower than what is currently being reported. Since this difference was seen consistently across all unit and facility types, trending data over time should still identify areas in need of improvement and may help to suggest causes of the over-reporting.

Background: Hand hygiene (HH) is fundamental to preventing the transmission of pathogens between patients. Unfortunately, adherence to HH is suboptimal and monitoring adherence is challenging. Electronic HH monitoring systems (EHHMS) are emerging potential solutions to increase the number of HH observations and eliminate the potential for observation bias. This aim of this study is to assess the impact of improved HH adherence after the introduction of an EHHMS on the rates of healthcare facility-onset multidrug-resistant organisms and Clostridioides difficile (HO-MDRO). Methods: We performed a retrospective, quasi-experimental study to evaluate the impact of HH on HO-MDROs across 4 acute care facilities (59 hospital units, 14 of which were ICUs) from January 2021 - September 2022 after implementing an EHHMS in a large academic healthcare system. Clinical cultures from all sources were included; routine surveillance cultures were not collected during this period. HO determination was made using National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) definitions. The association between monthly unit-level HH adherence (%) and HO-MDRO rate per 1000 patient-days was assessed using mixed-effects Poisson regression using rate ratios (RR), which accounts for unobserved heterogeneity between units while controlling for number of tests ordered per month per hospital unit. HH adherence was stratified in quartiles (Q1: 24-43%, Q2: 43-51%, Q3: 52-61%, Q4: 61-84%). Results: During the study period, there were 23 million HH opportunities and 1875 MDROs in 772,930 patient-days. HH adherence increased from 41% January 2021 to 57% September 2022. ESBL, MSSA, and CDIFF accounted for most MDROs (Figure 1). The mean monthly HH adherence rate was 52% per unit, with a median of 1.66 (IQR: 0-3.5) MDROs/1000 patient-days. Mixed-effects Poisson regression suggested no significant overall relationship between HH adherence and MDRO rate (Figure 2). A close to null association was observed when comparing quartile two to quartile one (RR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.82, 1.15), quartile three to quartile one (RR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.79, 1.17), and quartile four to quartile one (RR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.86, 1.28). Results were similar across hospitals (Figure 3). Conclusions: Although implementing an EHHMS led to an improvement in HH adherence, we were not able to demonstrate a resultant decrease in HO-MDROs. Potential explanations include the relatively rare outcomes of interest, unrecognized confounders, and the complex interaction between HH and HO-MDROs, since poor HH adherence on a unit may lead to increased attention from infection prevention and therefore increased focus on other MDRO prevention measures.

Background: Significant focus has been placed on healthcare worker hand hygiene, but little attention is has been assigned to the role of patient hand hygiene (HH) in reducing hospital acquired infections. Therefore, in this quality improvement study, we examined the impact of providing patients with hand hygiene products around mealtime on increasing patient HH adherence and on reducing acquisition of nosocomial antibiotic resistant organisms. Methods: Patients on two inpatient leukemia units at a tertiary oncologic center were provided with a single use pre-packaged alcohol wipe on their meal trays prior to every meal (three times daily). Additionally, an information card explaining to patients how and when to use the alcohol wipe was provided on the meal trays three times a week. Both the wipe and instructions were designed with input from patient representatives at the hospital. Two oncologic control units were selected where no specific intervention for patient hand hygiene was conducted. Patient hand hygiene adherence on the control and intervention units were measured through once monthly patient interviews conducted after meals where patients were asked to recall whether they washed their hands prior to eating (using any product). Vancomycin Resistant Enterococcus (VRE) incidence was compared on the intervention and control units during the 7 months prior and 7 months following initiating the intervention. Results: During the seven-month intervention period, more than 15 000 wipes were dispensed to patients on the intervention units. Through interview, 91% of 87 patients on the intervention units reported cleaning their hands before eating a meal using any cleaning product compared to 72% of 68 patients on the control units (X2 = 9.32, p = 0.002). Furthermore, on the intervention units, 30 (38%) patients endorsed using the provided hand hygiene product. During intervention period, the combined incidence rate of VRE the intervention units was 1.85 case/1000 patient-days compared to 5.35 cases/1000 patient-days during the 7 months prior to intervention (t = 3.24, p=0.007)(Figure 1). Conclusions: This patient-centered quality improvement intervention increased patient hand hygiene and potentially reduced VRE incidence in a vulnerable oncologic population. This practical intervention that incorporated the patient perspective provided accessible hand hygiene products with simple instruction and reminders required minimal participation of unit staff. Further application of the intervention in non-oncologic populations is needed to further establish the relationship between patient hand hygiene and the acquisition of nosocomial infections.

Background: This research, part of a doctoral study, aims to examine the impact of managerial factors on the implementation of Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) measures in Israeli hospitals. The study focuses on identifying key facilitators and barriers from the perspectives of physician and nurse managers, with an emphasis on understanding the integration of managerial strategies and theoretical frameworks in IPC implementation. Objective: The objective is to explore specific managerial factors, both facilitators and barriers, influencing the effective implementation of IPC measures. The research investigates these influences through the lens of physicians and nurses managing IPC units in public hospital settings. Methodology: A mixed-method approach was adopted, involving in-depth interviews with ten IPC-Unit managers (five physicians and five nurses) and a comprehensive questionnaire distributed among IPC-Unit heads. The study’s demographic and professional profiles of participants are detailed in Table 1. The data collection process encompassed an Activity Assessment Questionnaire (2-AAQ) and an Organizational Change Implementation Questionnaire (3-OrgChangeImplQ), with the distribution of responses categorized by implementation stages and sociological theories (Tables 2-4). Result: Managerial autonomy emerged as a significant catalyst for IPC implementation, with supportive leadership and resource allocation being critical. Differences in approaches between physician and nurse managers were observed, reflecting diverse strategies in planning, execution, monitoring, and maintenance of IPC measures. The findings also revealed a natural alignment with sociological theories, particularly Normalization Process Theory (NPT) and Diffusion of Innovations (DOI), despite a lack of formal training in these areas. Conclusions: The study underscores the multifaceted nature of IPC implementation, highlighting the importance of managerial autonomy, supportive leadership, and a deep understanding of organizational culture. The inherent alignment of IPC strategies with NPT and DOI theories suggests the potential of these frameworks in guiding IPC implementation. The research advocates for the integration of these theoretical perspectives into formal training programs to enhance the effectiveness of IPC measures in healthcare settings.

Background: Presenteeism when ill in healthcare personnel (HCP) can contribute to the spread of respiratory illness among HCP and patients. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic and now, there are substantial challenges preventing HCP from staying home when ill. We examined these challenges using the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) framework. Method: As part of a larger anonymous electronic survey between 3/11/2022 and 4/12/2022 at an academic tertiary referral center, in inpatient and ambulatory settings where respondents were asked to describe factors impacting presenteeism when ill, we analyzed free-text responses using the SEIPS categories of tasks, tools/technology, person, organization, and physical environment. Result: 522 comments were received in response to the open-ended survey question asking individuals to describe any factors that would assist them in remaining home and/or help them get tested for COVID-19 when they have symptoms of a respiratory illness; 21 were excluded due to absent or incomplete response. Of the remaining responses (N = 501, Figure 1), 82% were associated with a single SEIPS component such as organization (N = 409), while other responses discussed factors that involved two SEIPS components, in no particular order (N = 92). A majority of the responses (N = 324, 55%) reported organizational barriers, frequently citing a strict sick call-in policy as well as a lack of protected time-off for COVID-19 testing or related absences. The next two most commonly identified components were physical environment (N= 88, 15%) and tasks (N = 72, 12%), mentioning barriers such as far distances to testing centers and prolonged waiting periods for testing Results: The person and tools/technology components were less commonly identified, with a frequency of 9% each. Conclusion: A number of systems level factors were identified that may impact the ability of HCP to stay home when ill. Interventions to help overcome HCP perceived barriers to staying home when experiencing respiratory symptoms should focus on the policies and practices within an organization. Communication from leadership should support staying home with respiratory symptoms by creating plans for coverage and back up consistently across all employee types in direct care.

Background: The 2022 WHO global survey on infection prevention and control (IPC) exposes significant gaps in IPC in the WHO Southeast Asia region. A better understanding of IPC vulnerabilities will inform improvement initiatives. We describe an evaluation of IPC practices known to prevent and contain carbapenem-resistant organisms (CROs) at hospitals participating in the United States Centers for Disease Control Global Action in Healthcare Network –Antimicrobial Resistance in India. Prior hospital evaluations suggest resistance to carbapenems among gram-negative isolates is up to 45%. Methods: We conducted a mixed methods evaluation including cross-sectional surveys, semi-structured interviews, and site observations at five hospitals (one government, two private tertiary care, and two private teaching) located in three cities. The number of hospital beds ranged from 362 to 2,011. Hospital and IPC program characteristics, and CRO prevention and containment activities were examined virtually. Site observations focused on hand hygiene, environmental cleaning, personal protective equipment (PPE), CRO containment practices and use of water for patient care. Results: All sites had IPC programs with established policies and qualified IPC staff. The IPC nurse-to-bed ratio ranged from 1:73 to 1:432 (mean, 1:209). Due to the integral role of microbiology staff in IPC at these hospitals, the two departments had strong communication channels associated with CRO identification. Screening for CRO colonization, if done, targeted patients from outside hospitals. Three of the five hospitals routinely implemented contact precautions for patients with identified CROs, displayed isolation signage at the bedside, and provided adequate PPE at point-of-use; however, all sites reported barriers to effective isolation and/or cohorting patients with CROs. Timely communication of CROs to clinical staff varied and no sites effectively relayed CRO status upon patient discharge to another facility. IPC teams identified gaps in environmental cleaning procedures and practices related to medical devices and equipment. All sites used alternatives to tap water for clinical care and sink etiquette was evident. Each IPC team performed audits of patient isolation and hand hygiene practices. Despite the considerable proportion of IPC resources dedicated to daily education and feedback in clinical areas, the IPC teams reported that improvement was often difficult to achieve. Conclusion: Given the high burden of CROs and limited IPC resources, detailed knowledge of IPC opportunities for improvement will help hospitals target novel interventions for CRO prevention and containment. Further investigation of colonization rates and effective performance improvement methods in these settings is needed.

Disclosure: Patricia Simner: Research Contracts: BD Diagnostics, OpGen Inc., Qiagen Sciences Inc, T2 Diagnostics, Accelerate Diagnostics; Research Collaborators:Ares Genetics, CosmosID, IDbyDNA, Illumina; Consulting: OpGen Inc., BD Diagnostics, Shionogi Inc., GeneCapture, Qiagen Sciences Inc, Entasis, Day Zero Diagnostics, Next Gen Diagnostics

Background: Healthcare-associated infections (HAI) substantially increase hospital costs and lead to poor patient outcomes, particularly when caused by multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO). To decrease MDRO transmission, isolation of colonized or infected patients in single rooms is recommended. However, single-patient isolation rooms are expensive to build and often unavailable in resource-limited hospitals. In 2023, an intensive care unit (ICU) at a large Brazilian tertiary hospital relocated from a space with an open floor plan to a newly built location with single-patient rooms. We evaluated the impact of this transition on acquisition of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) colonization, HAI, and compliance with Hand Hygiene (HH) and Contact Precaution (CP) activities. Methods: We compared rates of CRE colonization acquisition, CRE colonization pressure, HAI, and compliance with HH and CP between pre- (March 1, 2022 – Feb 28, 2023) and post-implementation of single-rooms (March 1, 2023 - October 31, 2023) in a 12-bed surgical ICU. All patients were screened for CRE colonization on admission to the unit and weekly until discharge using rectal swab cultures. Colonization pressure was defined as the ratio of CRE-positive patient-days (PDs) to the total number of PDs. Rates of central-line associated blood-stream infections, ventilator-associated pneumonia, and catheter-associated urinary tract infections were monitored. HH and CP compliance were monitored weekly by infection prevention staff outside of the unit. Poisson regression and multiple linear regression were used to compare rates between pre- and post-implementation periods. Results: Healthcare acquisition of CRE colonization remainedstable between pre- and post-implementation (incidence rate ratio: 0.88 (95%CI, 0.73-1.05; P=0.16) despite an increase in CRE colonization pressure of 8.6% over baseline (from 7.84% pre- to 16.39% post-implementation (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.13-12.96%; P=.001)). The latter was driven by reduced turnover of CRE-colonized patients in the post-implementation period (mean patient-day reduced by 10.33; 95%CI, 3.06-17.61; P=0.006). Incidence of HAIs also remained stable (global incidence 3.12 vs 3.30, pre- and post-intervention, respectively; P=0.2). HH compliance was high prior to the transition (95.7%) and increased slightly but not significantly post-intervention (97.5%; P=0.3). CP compliance improved by 9.83%, especially in gown and glove changes after each patient interaction, from 90.62% pre- to 100% post-implementation (95%CI, 1.52-17.22; P=.02). Conclusion The move to an ICU with exclusively single-patient rooms was associated with increase in CP compliance. This could help explain why HAI incidence and healthcare acquisition of CRE colonization remained stable despite a significant increase in CRE colonization pressure.

Disclosure: Matias Salomao: Speaker - Cepheid

Background: Infection prevention and control assessments in healthcare settings serve as a primary resource for obtaining data and providing recommendations based on safety, compliance, and quality assurance guidelines. In Puerto Rico (PR), surgical site infections are underreported in the Epi Info platform used by the Puerto Rico Department of Health (PRDOH), mainly due to the complexity of their identification. By focusing on evaluating Operating Rooms/Sterile Processing and Distribution (OR/SPD) units in acute care facilities (ACFs), our goal is to generate new data within the Healthcare-Associated Infection/Antibiotic Resistance (HAI/AR) Program, specifically related to patient management throughout preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative phases, as well as reprocessing practices. Methods: Nineteen evaluations of ACFs' OR/SPDs were conducted from May through December 2023. Direct observations, file reviews, and personnel assessments were performed using an infection control assessment and response (ICAR) tool developed collaboratively by a team from an acute facility in PR and the HAI/AR Program staff. This ICAR Tool was customized based on guidelines from the certified Board for Sterile Processing and Distribution (CBSPD), the Association of periOperative Registered Nurses (AORN), and the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI), among other regulatory agencies. The Division of Health Quality Promotion (DHQP) reviewed and approved the tool for use in these evaluations. Results: Key findings indicate that 32% of Sterile Processing Department (SPD) units restrict access to dedicated personnel with available manufacturer’s instructions, yet only 36% of SPD personnel are certified in CBSPD and packaging practices. Only 10% of facilities had a water treatment system for sterilization and Immediate Use Steam Sterilization (IUSS) policies. Notably, 84% of endoscopy areas require additional equipment for cultivating endoscopes, and no facility possessed a borescope for visually inspecting endoscope lumens. Tray inspection occurred in 21%, and only 31% of staff knew the Spaulding Classification and Class V Indicators. Conclusion: These data underscore the necessity of evaluating OR/SPD units in ACFs to provide updated recommendations and mitigate the incidence of surgical site infections (SSI). They offer insight into the structural and functional status of OR/SPD units in Puerto Rico, aligning reporting with OR/SPD practices to enhance patient care and minimize infection risks.

Background: Current epidemiological methods have limitations in identifying transmission of bacteria causing healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). Recent whole genome sequencing (WGS) studies found that genetically related strains can cause HAIs without meeting standard epidemiologic definitions, but these results could not provide data in a timely fashion needed for intervention. Given recent advances in Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) sequencing, we sought to establish a validated ONT pipeline capable of providing accurate WGS-based comparisons of clinical pathogens within a short time frame that would allow for infection control interventions. Method: Using electronic medical record data, we identified potential healthcare acquisition of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), and carbapenem-resistant gram-negative rods. Bacterial genomic DNA was directly extracted from clinical microbiology lab plates. Sequencing was conducted with the ONT MinION sequencer and R10.4.1 flow cell. MINTyper for single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) calling and Ridom SeqSphere+ for core genome MLST were used to determine genetic relatedness. The main outcome was time from pathogen identification to completed genetic analysis. Result: The weekly workflow, from genomic DNA extraction to complete data analysis, averaged 2.6 days with a standard deviation of 1.3 days. (range: 1 to 6 days). Starting in August 2023, we have sequenced a total of 177 bacterial isolates from 156 unique patients. Isolates came from blood (38%), tissue/wound/body fluid (24%), urinary tract (20%), respiratory tract (16%), and rectal swab (2%). To date, six genetically related clusters have been identified. Three clusters involved ST117 vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium (VREfm), comprising a total of 13 unique patients distributed as 2, 3, and 8 patients in each group, with pairwise SNP differences of 20, 11, and 14. Patients within the same clusters showed epidemiological links through overlapping admissions and temporally shared ICU stays. Additionally, another cluster consisted of five genetically related ST633 Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolates, with a pairwise SNP difference of 57.5. Each patient in this cluster had potential epidemiological links through overlapping admission times, despite the absence of identified shared spaces. The last two clusters involved Klebsiella pneumoniae and Escherichia coli (two cases each), with pairwise SNP differences of 18 and 9, respectively. In both cases, each patient showed potential epidemiological links through overlapping admission times. Conclusion: Our stand-alone ONT pipeline was able to rapidly and accurately detect genetically related AMR pathogens, aligning closely with epidemiological data. Our approach has the potential to assist in the efficient detection and deployment of preventative measures against healthcare-associated infection transmission.

Background: Febrile neutropenia (FN) is the most common complication of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia that affects over 80% of patients with hematologic malignancies. National guidance and randomized controlled trial data demonstrate empiric antimicrobial therapy (EAT) can be discontinued after 72 hours of apyrexia and clinical recovery regardless of absolute neutrophil count (ANC). A 2019 internal study identified opportunity for improvement for targeted de-escalation. We aimed to reevaluate duration of EAT in patients with FN without a documented source of infection. Methods: A pharmacovigilance platform identified 110 patients from January to September 2023 without identified source of infection. Data collection was performed via manual chart review. Historic patient data from our 2019 cohort (n=50) was available in our research repository. The primary outcome was the duration of EAT in patients with at least 72 hours of apyrexia and clinical recovery, defined as normalization of vital signs. Secondary outcomes included adverse events associated with EAT, and initiation of intravenous vancomycin. Results: Baseline characteristics for 2023 were similar to historic, median age was 67.5 years, 56% were male, and median ANC at fever onset was 150 cells/μL. EAT was continued in 29 patients (58%) despite defervescence and stabilization versus 35 (70%) in 2019 (figure 1). Average duration (LOT) of EAT beyond clinical stabilization was 6 versus 7 days. Adverse effects due to EAT occurred in 13 patients in 2023 (26%) versus 4 (8%); of which, C. difficile infection (CDI) was the greatest contributor. Vancomycin was initiated in 31 patients (62%), 22 having no identifiable indication. Conclusions: Rates of EAT de-escalation for neutropenic patients after 72 hours of apyrexia and clinical stability improved by 12% as compared to 2019. Mean days of overall EAT was 3 days less in 2023. With a notable increase in CDI rates in 2023, dedicated time for antimicrobial stewardship review, clinician education and guideline driven alerts for review will be explored to help further improve practice.

Objective: Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) is a contagious airborne disease that is spread from person to person via particles in the air which are expelled when speaking or coughing1. This retrospective observational study aims to assess the nosocomial transmission of pulmonary MTB among inpatient roommates in a high-risk oncological population over a 14-year period. With limited studies on the transmissibility of MTB in such environments, the investigation focuses on evaluating the risk of nosocomial transmission and implementation of appropriate infection control measures. Design: A retrospective analysis from 2010 – April 2023 was conducted in an acute care, 500-bed oncological center. Following exposure workups performed by the Department of Infection Prevention and Control, 17 of 57 identified patients with active pulmonary MTB had inpatient stays with roommates. Source infectivity showed 7 AFB smear positive results, 4 MTB PCR positive results, and 14 MTB culture positive results. Some index patients had a combination of AFB, PCR and/or culture positivity. A high-risk exposure is defined as any patient who shared a room with an index patient for >4 cumulative hours during the infectious period. Infectious period was determined for each index patient based on the onset of symptoms and laboratory results. Workups identified 33 exposed roommates who were notified and advised to undergo testing, employing QuantifERON (QFT-GIT) serum test or Tuberculin skin (TST) PPD test at least 8 weeks following their last day of exposure. The overlap between inpatient roommates and index patients ranged from 1 to 4 days, averaging 1.5 days. Results: Of the 33 high-risk roommates, 14 (42%) patients were unable to provide follow-up testing for various reasons including: patient expiration prior to testing, patient transfer to hospice, and being lost to follow up. Nineteen (58%) patients completed post-exposure testing. 12 patients underwent PPD testing (63%) and 7 patients underwent QuantifERON testing (37%). Zero (0%) were found to have a positive QuantifERON or PPD following their exposure. 15.8% (N=3) of exposed patients had hematologic malignancies, and 84.2% (N=16) of exposed patients had solid tumor malignancies. Conclusion: The risk of active pulmonary MTB transmission in an oncological, inpatient setting was determined to be low. The absence of positive conversions among roommates of confirmed MTB patients underscores the effectiveness of infection control measures, emphasizing the importance of isolating confirmed or suspected cases promptly. Ongoing efforts should continue to focus on these preventive measures to mitigate the risk of MTB transmission in similar high-risk settings.

References: 1. How TB Spreads. CDC, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/tb/topic/basics/howtbspreads.htm

Background: The role of the infection preventionist (IP) is complex and encompasses a range of responsibilities requiring extensive knowledge in infection control practices, data analysis, surveillance, performance improvement and collaboration with multidisciplinary teams. Infection prevention certification (CIC) by the certification Board of Infection Control (CBIC) is a standardized marker of knowledge and competencies required for practice in the field. In a 2020 survey of IPs, less than half were certified or planned to become certified. Of those that do take the certification exam, less than three quarters pass on their initial exam attempt. Methods: From 2017 to 2023, fifty-two new IPs were enrolled in a competency-based training program which combined didactic and applied learning on core IP job functions, and a structured mentoring program. The initial didactic phase consisted of evidence-based learning modules with validation of competency through post-training testing and practical demonstration. Education was provided by an advanced practice IP via remote webinars, which included discussion of questions, skills coaching, and review of post-tests. Novice IPs were partnered with at least two preceptors: one advanced practice lead preceptor guided the novice IPs through assigned education modules and oversaw program management and training benchmarks. A second, near-peer preceptor or mentor collaborated with the novice IP in the facility setting. Initial training focused on facility operations, surveillance, rounding and other facility specific activities. Facility mentors were responsible for combining education module topics with practical application of skills. Mentors guided novice IPs through National Healthcare Surveillance network (NHSN) surveillance training and validated surveillance and infection coding until the novice IP had an interrater reliability validation assessing surveillance competency. After the initial training phase, the novice IPs began preparation for certification. This phase included additional training modules aligned with the CBIC certification content outline and practice exams. Results: All 52 novice IPs completed the training program and attempted the CIC examination. The initial pass rate for the certification exam among IPs in the supervised training and mentorship program was 98.1% (n=51). This is 33% higher than the initial pass rate published by CBIC, which was 73.9% (Figure 1). Conclusions: Organizing evidence-based guidelines into topic-specific modules builds a foundation of infection prevention and control knowledge, which is enhanced through remote instruction and direct application of skills under a preceptor’s supervision. This method allows IPs to be introduced to concepts covered in the board certification exam upon hire and support certification with improved outcome

Background: Hospitals are increasingly consolidating into networks and integrating infection prevention (IP) into system infection prevention programs (SIPP). Very little has been published about these programs. This survey sheds light on the current state of SIPPs. Methods: We used the survey generator Alchemer.com for setting up the questionnaire, and tested a beta version among peers. The final version was sent out to SHEA Research Network participants in August 2023. Raw data was compiled and analyzed. Results: Forty institutions responded (40/104, 38%), of which 25 (63%) had SIPPs. These SIPPS reported health systems with a median of 4.5 acute care hospitals (range, 1-33); 16 SIPPS reported a median of 2 critical access hospitals (range, 1-8); 4 SIPPs reported 1-3 LTACHs, and 6 SIPPS reported a median of 1.5 nursing homes. All except 3 (88%) contained an academic center; 48% (11/23) of the U.S. based programs operate in multiple states. Four programs have been in place >20 years, four < 2 years, and the remainder a median of 8 years (range, 2-18). Physician directors also have clinical (20/25, 80%), teaching (19/25, 76%), research (15/25, 60%), antimicrobial stewardship (8/25, 32%), quality (8/25, 32%), and/or patient safety (5/25, 20%) roles. Seventeen (68%) report having a written job description. Nineteen (76%) report having an infection preventionist in a system IP director role; only 7/25 (28%) have a dedicated system IP team that operates independent of individual hospitals. Sixteen (64%) report administrative support, 10/25 (40%) have a data manager/analyst, and 4/25 (16%) include IT expert or programmer support. 15/25 (60%) report having done a formal system-wide IP needs assessment. While 16/25 (64%) have some automation in HAI surveillance (predominantly using Bugsy [Epic] or Theradoc [Premier]), while only 5/25 (20%) run fully automated surveillance. 10/25 (40%) have implemented centralized surveillance. 12/25 (48%) have “system IP policies” that are hierarchically above individual site policies. The biggest challenges appear to be gaps in 1) clear governing structure, 2) communication, 3) consistent staffing, 4) data management support, and 5) dedicated, empowered IP expert FTEs. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first U.S. survey to explore present-day system infection prevention. In this sample of hospital networks, we found heterogeneity in the structure, staffing and resources for system IP with significant opportunities for improvement. In this era of healthcare consolidation, our findings highlight the urgent need to more clearly delineate and support system IP needs in order to enhance their functionality.

Background: COVID19 remains deadly to Americans over 75 years old despite vaccination and additional infection control practices in long term care (LTC). The evolution of more transmissible COVID19 variants and continued viral aerosols result in persistent COVID19 outbreaks in LTC during high community levels of COVID19. Despite the end of pandemic Federal support and the continued vulnerability of elderly to the virus, LTC facilities remain dedicated to protecting this vulnerable population. The study hypothesized that utilization of continuous, facility-wide, advanced photocatalysis (AP) disinfection technology will reduce microbial burden in air and on surfaces, demonstrating a decrease in infectious aerosols and subsequent COVID19 cases among residents and workers. Methods: A prospective facility controlled experimental study was performed in skilled nursing facilities in Pennsylvania and New Jersey from January 2023 to April 2023 to surveil aerobic bacterial and fungal colony forming units (CFUs) in air, and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and fungal CFUs on surfaces and floors prior to and post AP technology installation. Impacts on resident COVID19 cases were recorded and compared to the same extended observation period (February-July 2023) one year prior (2022) with similar year over year community COVID19 rates. In addition, two matched control centers in regional proximity to the intervention facility were also prospectively studied. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze mean microbial burdens after each post activation period (significance p <.05). Results: From baseline to final testing, the intervention facility surface testing showed a 93% reduction in mean aerobic bacterial CFUs (p=.002); 96% reduction in mean fungal CFUs (p<.001); 97% reduction in mean MRSA CFUs (p<.001). Floor testing also showed reductions in mean CFUs for aerobic bacteria by 92% (p<.001); 96% for fungi (p<.001); 99% for MRSA (p<.001). Air testing showed reductions in mean CFUs for aerobic bacteria by 87% (p=.005); 36% for fungal (p=.005). The intervention facility observed a 94% reduction in resident COVID19 cases compared to the matched control facilities that increased 46% during the 2023 time period (Figure 1). Conclusion: This study is on the pioneering edge of demonstrating that continuous and persistent disinfection technology reduces contaminant reservoirs on surfaces, floors, and air and clearly decreases infectious aerosols and improves resident outcomes by dramatically reducing COVID19 transmission in LTC facilities.

Background: We know relatively little about how healthcare personnel (HCP) in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) integrate hand hygiene (HH) and personal protective equipment (PPE; e.g., gloves) use into their care processes. To address this gap, we are examining HH and PPE adherence at critical and contaminating moments in LTCFs. Methods: We conducted ethnographic observations of HCP’s processes of care in 2 LTCFs in Iowa to examine HH and PPE adherence during contaminating tasks in resident care sequences. We captured care observations and additional data on topics related to our study focus (e.g., unit/room layouts, PPE storage, facility policies/procedures) in field notes. We transcribed and imported fieldnotes into MAXQDA qualitative data management software and analyzed the data using a combined deductive-inductive coding approach. Results: Between 1/2023-7/2023, we observed 60 (30 per facility) care episodes. Most observations included toileting activities and perineal care during which HCP would be expected to use gloves and/or do HH. Most HCP appropriately donned/doffed gloves and practiced HH at key moments (e.g., before clean/aseptic procedures, after perineal care), but were less compliant before/after touching residents’ clothing or bare skin during these activities. In addition, some held soiled items next to their scrubs between tasks, which could contaminate their clothing and arms and could facilitate transmission of pathogens to other residents. Moreover, HCP’s interactions with floors emerged inductively as a topic of interest during our observations and preliminary analyses. We observed HCP interact with the floor during these activities in ways that could increase risk of pathogen transmission. HCP frequently dropped soiled towels or wipes used in perineal care onto the floor during tasks for later pick up. HCP also moved or placed trash bags containing soiled or contaminated items on the floor. HCP routinely knelt on, sat on, or touched their hands on the same floor when talking with residents, helping residents change clothes or diapers, changing bedding, or adjusting wheelchair footpads. In one case, the HCP picked up clean towels that fell to the floor near soiled towels and then used the “clean towels” in resident perineal care. Conclusion: Despite practicing HH and appropriate PPE use, HCP in LTCFs may increase the risk of pathogen transmission unintentionally through their interactions with soiled items and the environment, including floors. Given the nature of resident care in LTCFs, HCP in LTCF may be more likely than HCP in acute care settings to interact with contaminated floors.

Background: Infections due to antibiotic resistant bacteria are increasing worldwide and while, the epidemiology of these pathogens is well described in adults, pediatric specific data are lacking. We sought to gain an understanding of the risk factors for multi-drug resistant Gram-negative (MDRGN) infections in our pediatric population. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of pediatric patients seen at a pediatric hospital system in 2022 who had a culture-positive MDRGN, which was defined as a gram-negative bacteria resistant or intermediate to at least 1 antibiotic in ≥ 3 antibiotic groups. Repeat positive cultures for the same MDRGN were considered a single infection episode if occurring within a 14-day period. Demographic, clinical, and microbiologic data was obtained from the electronic medical record. Fisher’s exact was used for analysis. Results: One hundred and seventy-nine children had 237 infection episodes during the study period. Eighty-one patients (45%) were male and the median age was 5.3 years. The most prevalent MDRGNs included: Escherichia coli (154, 65%), Klebsiella spp (52, 22%), and Enterobacter spp (16, 7%). Escherichia coli was significantly more likely than other pathogens to be isolated from the urine (P = 0.008). Compared to multi-drug resistant E. coli, patients with a non-E. coli MDRGN were significantly more likely to have an underlying medical condition, recent hospitalization and antibiotic use (P≤0.001 for each, Table 1). A carbapenem was administered in 32% (75/237) of infection episodes. There were only 6 carbapenem resistant organisms. Conclusions: In our study, E. coli was the most frequent MDRGN. Most patients with a non-E. coli MDRGN infection episode had an underlying medical condition, recent hospitalization and antibiotic use. Carbapenem resistance was infrequent, though surveillance studies are needed to identify changing antibiotic resistance patterns and to direct prevention measures.

Background: In August 2023, an infection preventionist at an acute care hospital in Alabama recognized an increase in cases of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, which is an emerging pathogen in clinical settings worldwide. It was not until the facility identified the pathogen in their water system in October that it was reported to ADPH as an outbreak. The outbreak investigation was brief due to the hospital’s rapid containment response and adherence to its established water management program (WMP). As a result of inappropriate antibiotic use in hospitals, pan-resistant strains have been increasing at an alarming rate. The pathogen can employ water used in hospital settings to cause a variety of nosocomial infections, including those found in the blood, respiratory tract, urinary tract, and on the skin. Hospitalized patients, especially those with immunocompromising conditions or implanted medical devices, are at increased risk of significant morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to better understand the clinical and demographic characteristics of the 13 case-patients identified during this investigation. Methods: A retrospective case series was conducted by reviewing medical records for case-patients with culture-confirmed S. maltophilia admitted between July and November. The CDC Healthcare-Associated Infection Outbreak Investigation Abstraction Form was used to systematically collect details about each case-patient’s hospitalization and course of illness. A Gantt chart was developed in Microsoft Excel to illustrate key events during their hospitalization. Results: Of the 13 case-patients, 69% were male and the median age was 69 years (range: 30 to 77). All S. maltophilia infections were hospital-acquired (>3 days after admission) with 92% being respiratory and 46% resistant to more than one class of antibiotics. All case-patients were admitted to the ICU and had known risk factors associated with developing S. maltophilia infection, including intubation (100%) and receiving antibiotic therapy prior to infection (77%). Other major risk factors included invasive surgery (77%), co-infections (77%), chronic respiratory disease (62%), hypertension (54%), and renal failure (31%). All were severely immunocompromised. Forty-six percent of the case-patients died from complications associated with their illness. Conclusion: This is the first S. maltophilia outbreak reported in Alabama. The findings of this case series underscored the importance of employing strict infection prevention measures to reduce poor health outcomes and how strong antibiotic stewardship programs are needed to limit transmission among vulnerable patient populations in these settings. It is recommended that hospitals conduct routine environmental sampling and have a WMP that is effective in limiting S. maltophilia.