Background: Although vaccine hesitancy has been an issue for many years, it has become a major point of contention in the effort to mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic. In August 2021, a large academic medical facility began capturing the vaccination status of admitted COVID-19–positive patients, as well as their interest in the COVID-19 vaccine. We performed a descriptive analysis on the characteristics of unvaccinated patients who contracted COVID-19 and their interest in receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. Methods: Patient history and physical (H&P) notes and demographic data were collected using the internal data warehouse sourced from the electronic medical record for all SARS-COV-2–positive inpatient admissions to UNC Medical Center and UNC Chatham from August 1, 2021, to January 11, 2022. Manual chart reviews of progress notes were completed for patients whose history was not recorded in the initial H&P. Demographic data were summarized by vaccine status overall and by interest in COVID-19 vaccine among unvaccinated patients. We performed χ2 to determine demographic differences between the interested and uninterested unvaccinated groups. Results: In total, 536 patients were admitted with COVID-19 from August 1, 2021, to January 11, 2022. Of these, 15% were fully vaccinated (2 doses mRNA plus 1 dose J&J); 5.4% were partially vaccinated; 75.7% were unvaccinated; and 2.9% had an unknown vaccination status. Demographic characteristics are presented in Table 1. The most common demographics were consistent among the fully vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, with the exception of sex and age group (Table 1). For those whose interest data were available (n = 164), 34% were uninterested in receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. Importantly, race and age were statistically significantly different (P < .05) between the unvaccinated interested and unvaccinated uninterested groups. Conclusions: Even after experiencing COVID-19 firsthand and being hospitalized, some people who remain uninterested in receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. This population had a statistically higher proportion of white and older individuals than the unvaccinated interested group. Recommendations from healthcare providers might not be effective in persuading this population to be vaccinated. Instead, grassroots alternatives might be more successful. Additional analysis should be considered on whether patients who expressed interest in COVID-19 vaccine received immunization.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

We surveyed trainees about their urine culture practices and assessed the impact of an educational intervention delivered electronically and in person. Trainee scores improved across all levels of training and across all questions on the postintervention survey, but there was no difference in scores by mode of education (P = .91).

Background: Working while ill, or presenteeism, has been documented at substantial levels among healthcare personnel (HCP) along with its consequences for both patient and HCP safety. Limited literature has been published on HCP presenteeism during the COVID-19 pandemic, and specific motivations for this behavior are not well described. Understanding both individual and systemic factors that contribute to presenteeism is key to reducing respiratory illness transmission in the healthcare setting. We characterized the frequency of and motivations for presenteeism in the workforce of a large academic medical center during the COVID-19 pandemic. Method: We deployed a voluntary, anonymous electronic survey to HCP at University of North Carolina (UNC) Medical Center in December 2021, which was approved by the UNC Institutional Review Board. We received 591 responses recruited through employee newsletters. Respondents recounted their frequency of presenteeism since March 2020, defined as coming to work feeling feverish plus cough and/or sore throat. In total, 24.6% reported presenteeism at least once, with 8.1% reporting twice and 5.3% 3 or more times. Asking more generally about any symptoms while working, the following were most common: headache (26%), sinus congestion (20%), sore throat (13%), cough (13%), and muscle aches (9.3%). Results: Motivations for presenteeism fell broadly into 4 categories: (1) perception of low risk for COVID-19 infection, (2) concerns about workplace culture and operations, (3) issues with sick leave, and (4) concerns about employment record and status. Among HCP reporting at least 1 instance, the most common motivations for presenteeism included feeling low risk for COVID-19 infection due to mild symptoms (59.9%), being vaccinated (50.6%), avoiding increasing colleagues’ workload (48.3%), avoiding employment record impact (39.6%), and saving sick days for other purposes (37.9%). Asked to identify a primary motivation, 40.3% reported feeling low risk for COVID-19 infection due to mild symptoms or vaccination, 21.2% reported a workplace culture issue (ie, increasing colleague workload, perception of weakness, responsibility for patients), 20.6% reported sick leave availability and use (including difficulty finding coverage) and 17.8% reported employment record ramifications including termination. Conclusions: This survey coincided with 2the onset of the SARS-CoV-2 ο (omicron) variant locally, and as such, risk perceptions and motivations for presenteeism may have changed. Responses were self-reported and generalizability is limited. Still, these results highlight the importance of risk messaging and demonstrate the many factors to be considered as potential presenteeism motivators. Mitigating these drivers is particularly critical during high-risk times such as pandemics or seasonal peaks of respiratory illness.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

We investigated the frequency, distribution, and risk factors of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) environmental contamination around infected patients during the first and third wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. The shedding of SARS-CoV-2 in rooms of infected patients was limited in our hospital setting.

Between 2016 and 2021, we retrospectively identified 42 patients receiving ≥1 dose of dalbavancin for osteomyelitis, skin and soft-tissue infection, endocarditis or bacteremia, or septic arthritis. Median antibiotic duration prior to dalbavancin administration was 7 days. Within 90 days, 93% achieved clinical cure, 12% were readmitted, 12% developed hepatotoxicity, and 5% died.

Background: Hospital at home (HaH) programs have been a critical resource for providing inpatient care to acutely ill patients throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Given that this innovative care delivery model relies on technology and environmental concerns, questions have been raised about the effectiveness of HaH for vulnerable groups. However, evidence is extremely limited regarding equity issues in the HaH context. Thus, we explored COVID-19 outcomes within vulnerable groups. Methods: We conducted a matched, retrospective study of 116 acutely ill patients with COVID-19, aged ≥18 years, who presented to an AH emergency department (ED) and were admitted for inpatient care. Treatment patients were admitted to AH HaH between July 15 and September 31, 2020, and control patients were hospitalized between May 8 and June 25, 2020. Patients were matched based on oxygen requirement and DS CRB-65 (DEFINE) score. Race or ethnicity and area deprivation index (ADI) were chosen as predictors of health disparities. The ADI incorporates 17 indicators of poverty, educational attainment, and housing quality at the census tract level. Outcomes included 30-day (from discharge) severe illness or death composite, IP readmission, and ED visit. Results: The frequency of 30-day severe illness or death and ED visits were equivalent between the groups (n = 11; ED n = 5); the proportion of severe illness was higher for White patients in AH-HaH (n = 9 vs n = 5), and for Hispanic patients treated in the hospital (n = 5 vs n = 0; Fig. 1). There were no 30-day inpatient readmissions in the AH-HaH group, but 8 readmissions occurred with inpatients. The distribution of severe illness among the ADI quintiles varied. For traditional inpatients, disease progression was limited to ADI Q3–5 (Q3 = 3, Q4 = 6, Q5 = 2); for AH-HaH patients, disease progression was not influenced by ADI. The effect of ADI on 30-day ED readmission was nonsignificant. Conclusions: Although exploratory in nature, the results suggest that HaH may help combat sources of health disparities that have dominated the pandemic. Although inpatient care resulted in inpatient readmissions, mainly among Black and Hispanic patients, AH-HaH stays were not associated with any inpatient readmissions. The equivalent distribution among ADI quintiles of patients who became severely ill within 30 days of their AH-HaH stay suggests that HaH may be able to leverage innovation to reach vulnerable populations and reduce the impact of factors that contribute to inequity.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

Background: Bathing ICU patients with chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) decreases bloodstream infections and multidrug-resistant organism transmission. The efficacy of CHG bathing on skin microorganism reduction may be influenced by patient-level clinical factors. We assessed the impact of clinical factors on the recovery of microorganisms from the skin of patients admitted to an ICU who were receiving routine CHG bathing. Methods: We analyzed data obtained from 6 single-day point-prevalence surveys of adult ICU patients between January and October 2018 at 1 medical ICU, in the context of a CHG bathing quality initiative. Demographics and covariates were collected at the bedside and by chart review. Skin swabs were collected from neck, axilla, and inguinal regions and were plated to selective and nonselective media. Standard microbiologic methods were used for species identification and susceptibilities. Multivariable models included patients who received a CHG bath and accounted for clustering of body sites within patients. Results: Across all time points, 144 patients participated, yielding 429 skin swab samples. Mean age was 57 years (SD, 17); 49% were male; 44% had a central venous catheter; and 15% had a tracheostomy Also, 140 patients (97%) had >1 CHG bath prior to skin swab collection, with a median of 9 hours since their last CHG bath (IQR, 6–13 hours). Gram-positive bacteria were more commonly recovered than gram-negative or Candida spp across all skin sites (Table 1). Variation by body site was detected only for gram-positive bacteria, with recovery more common from the neck compared to axilla or groin sites. On multivariate logistic regression (Table 2), presence of central venous catheter was associated with lower odds of gram-positive bacteria recovery among those who received a CHG bath. Presence of tracheostomy was associated with a significantly higher odds of gram-negative bacteria detection on skin. No clinical factors were independently associated with recovery of Candida spp. Conclusions: Central venous catheter presence was associated with lower odds of gram-positive bacteria detection on skin, suggesting the possibility of higher quality CHG bathing among such patients. Tracheostomy presence was associated with greater odds of gram-negative bacteria detection, suggesting that it may be a potential reservoir for skin contamination or colonization. Indwelling medical devices may influence CHG bathing effectiveness in reducing microorganism burden on skin.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

In this cohort study of UK healthcare workers, we evaluated the use of fortnightly polymerase chain reaction (PCR) screening to facilitate the safe resumption of elective surgery in a low-prevalence setting. We found that adherence to serial testing was poor, and the resource required to identify 1 asymptomatic case was substantial.

Background: Bloodstream infections (BSIs) have life-threatening consequences; they contribute to increased global morbidity and mortality, particularly in critically ill patients. Consequently, early implementation of effective antimicrobial therapy is crucial. Microbiology stewardship efforts, such as rapid diagnostic testing, streamline healthcare resources while also optimizing clinical outcomes. These outcomes include decreased mortality, fewer days of hospitalization, and more efficient time to appropriate anti-infective regimens. Biofire Blood Culture Identification (BCID) is a 2-stage multiplexed PCR system yielding multiple pathogen etiologies, as well as antimicrobial resistance genes. Results are published ~60 minutes after a blood-culture Gram stain turns positive. The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical impact of rapid diagnostic PCR testing, which was introduced at Saint Francis Hospital in March 2020. Methods: We conducted a single-center, retrospective observational chart review before and after implementation of Biofire BCID, surveying all positive cultures from December 2019 through June 2020. Medical records were more thoroughly reviewed for patients who met study inclusion criteria. The primary outcome of interest, time to appropriate antimicrobial therapy, included both days to targeted therapy in the setting of a probable pathogen, and days to antibiotic discontinuation in the case of a likely contaminant (nonpathogenic normal skin flora introduced into culture at the time of collection or processing). Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality (death during hospitalization), and inpatient length of stay (LOS). Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used for primary outcomes and Fisher exact tests were used for secondary outcomes. Results: Among 643 patients with positive blood cultures, 410 (63.8%) met the criteria. In the study, 220 patients before the intervention and 190 patients after the intervention were reviewed. The difference in mean days to targeted therapy with a probable pathogen and days to antibiotic discontinuation with a likely contaminant were both observed at a significance level (3.62 vs 1.79, P Inpatient mortality rates were higher prior to launching Biofire BCID, but they were not statistically significant (15.5% vs 14.2 %; P = .782). The average LOS before and after implementation was 12.6 days (range, 2–92 days), and 10 days (range, 2–68 days), respectively. This parameter was also not statistically significant (P = .597). Conclusions: We detected a trend toward a significant reduction in time to appropriate antimicrobial therapy following the launch of Biofire BCID. Incorporation of molecular rapid diagnostics for BSI evaluation should be the standard of care in hospital settings.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

Penicillin allergy delabeling is an important component of antimicrobial stewardship and improves patient outcomes. We demonstrated the successful use of a nurse-initiated questionnaire to remove inappropriate penicillin allergy labels in inpatients. Nurses can play a key role in improving antibiotic allergy assessment and more broadly in interprofessional antimicrobial stewardship.

Background: In the treatment of bloodstream infections, the identification of the causal pathogen, and the evaluation of its susceptibility to antibiotics, often serve as the rate-limiting steps of the patient’s hospital stay. The GenMark Dx ePlex blood culture identification gram-positive (BCID-GP) panel aims to alleviate this bottleneck, thereby reducing the risk of severe complications and the spread of resistance, using electrowetting technology to detect the most common causes of GP bacteremia (20 targets) and 4 antimicrobial resistance (AMR) genes. We hypothesized that implementation of the ePlex BCID-GP panel would improve antimicrobial choice and de-escalation where appropriate. Methods: A mixed blinded and unblinded study was conducted to assess the effect of the BCID-GP panel on the outcomes and antibiotic stewardship of GP bacteremic patients before ePlex results were made clinically available (before implementation, N = 73) and once they accompanied the standard-of-care work-up (after implementation, N = 82). Differences in time to different benchmarks between the 2 modalities and the effect on patient outcomes were analyzed using null-hypothesis significance testing. Results: During the study, the BCID-GP panel identified 63 (42%) Staphylococcus epidermidis isolates, 31 (21%) Staphylococcus spp, 24 (16%) Staphylococcus aureus isolates, 12 (8%) Streptococcus spp, and 7 (5%) Enterococcus spp, and results were similar in the pre- and postimplementation groups (P = .13). The panel saved an average of 32.0 ± 24.2 hours in pathogen identification over standard-of-care methods, with no statistical difference made by the clinical availability of the data (Table 1). In terms of susceptibility testing, the panel saved an average of 70.1 ± 58.2 hours but with less unity between the 2 cohorts (P = .005). Of the 66 cases with follow-up, identification via ePlex indicated an escalation of therapy in 20 (30%) and a narrowing of coverage in 31 (47%). In patients identified to have Staphylococcus aureus, BCID-GP could change antimicrobial therapy in 79%; the need for escalation of antibiotics was identified in 58% of cases. In patients with Staphylococcus epidermidis bacteremia, implementation of BCID-GP panel could have resulted in de-escalation of antimicrobial therapy in 67% of patients. The implementation of the BCID-GP panel was correlated with no significant change of in-hospital mortality (P = .72) but was correlated with a significantly decreased death-censored total length of stay (LOS) (P < .001) and LOS after culture (P = .001). Conclusions: Our study has demonstrated that nonculture identification of bacteria and susceptibility can result in major improvements in antimicrobial therapy in patients, particularly those with contaminants identified.

Funding: GenMark DX

Disclosures: None

Background: Enhanced strategies for daily disinfection in acute-care hospital rooms are needed but are poorly understood. Methods: We conducted a randomized control trial pilot study in acute-care hospital rooms at Duke University Health System in Durham, North Carolina, comparing the efficacy of a novel EPA-registered quaternary ammonium disinfectant with 24-hour activity, Sani24, to routine daily disinfection. Rooms housing patients on contact precautions were enrolled. In each study room, the bedrails, overbed table, and sink were divided into 2 equal halves, or sides, labeled left and right, with sample areas of 2,000 cm2, 1,750 cm2, and 400 cm2, respectively. Each sample area side was then randomized 1:1 to intervention or control by a coin toss. Sani24 was applied to the surface of each intervention sample side and allowed to air dry. Control sides were left alone. Environmental services (EVS) staff were not involved in the study and were blinded to randomization status. Glogerm dots were applied to all 6 sample-area sides after application of the intervention to measure compliance of daily disinfection by EVS and the removal of the intervention agent. Microbiological samples were taken with sponges premoistened with neutralizing buffer from each sample area side for 6 total samples (3 intervention and 3 control) immediately before and 24 hours following application of the intervention agent. Clinically important pathogens (CIP) were defined as MRSA, VRE, and CRE. The primary outcome was room CFU on study day 1, which was compared using a Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Results: In total, 20 patient rooms were enrolled in the study, and 240 samples were obtained from 120 sites (60 intervention and 60 control) from November 2021 to January 2022. Enrolled patients were all on contact isolation and had an active infection; 15 (75%) were bedridden and 8 (40%) were female. On day 0, baseline contamination was similar between study arms: 7,460 (IQR,4,204–16,482) room CFU and 18 samples (30%) harboring CIP in the intervention arm versus 7,273 (IQR, 3,142–21,117) and 15 samples (25%) in the control arm (P = .49 and .47, respectively). On day 1, intervention areas had significantly lower CFU at 4,016 (IQR, 2,339–7,358) compared to controls at 6,112 CFU (IQR, 3,484–11,356; P = .01). No significant differences were detected between study arms regarding CIP recovery. Glogerm was minimally removed from sample areas (n = 7, 3%), and the result was similar between study arms. Conclusions: The use of the quaternary ammonium disinfectant with 24-hour activity on high-touch healthcare surfaces led to reduced contamination over a 24-hour period. Routine daily disinfection compliance by EVS was low since minimal sample areas had Glogerm removed

Funding: PDI

Disclosures: None

Background: It is well established that stethoscopes harbor pathogenic bacteria species. Within hospital settings, these pathogens can be rapidly transmitted from room to room and can cause harm in vulnerable populations. The current literature demonstrates that disinfecting stethoscopes with isopropanol kills 99% of all bacteria. However, in practice this rarely occurs and disinfection is subject to user error. We assessed the efficacy of ultraviolet germicidal irradiation (UV-C) at decontaminating stethoscopes used at our rural healthcare system along with the cleaning habits of their users. Methods: Stethoscopes were randomly selected from the clinical staff of our hospital’s largest nursing unit. The stethoscopes were each swabbed for culture then exposed to UV-C for 20 seconds and sampled again. Users were asked to complete a survey during this process. Samples were then cultivated on tryptone soya broth (TSB) agar, and all growth was sent for identification via matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization (MALDI-TOF). Later, the protocol was repeated to assess cleaning efficacy of the isopropanol wipes commonly used in our hospital. We collected pre- and postintervention samples after cleaning vigorously for 3 minutes according to the manufacturer’s guidelines. The samples were classified as follows: “cleaner” if the number of colonies decreased after sanitation, “sterilized” if the number of colonies decreased to zero, “no change” if the number of colonies stayed the same, and “no assessment” if there was no preintervention growth. Several samples “increased” in CFU count after the intervention, likely due to incomplete sampling, contamination, or incomplete penetration of UV-C. The Fisher exact test was used to analyze the effectiveness of the stethoscope sanitation techniques. Results: In total, 60 samples (33 used for analysis) were obtained from stethoscopes cleaned with UV-C (Fig. 1). Moreover, 34 samples (28 used for analysis) were obtained from stethoscopes cleaned with isopropanol (Fig. 2). Both UV-C (93.9% vs 6.1%; P < .01) and isopropanol (100% vs 0%; P < .01) resulted in a significant decrease in bacterial colonization on stethoscopes. UV-C was not more effective at sanitizing stethoscopes than isopropanol (93.9% vs 100%; P = .50). Conclusions: Both UV-C and isopropanol were effective at cleaning hospital stethoscopes. Given that UV-C is not subject to user error and that it takes less time to clean a stethoscope than isopropanol, it may be the superior option in a clinical setting.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended hand hygiene (HH) stations (ie, with soap and water for handwashing or alcohol-based hand rub or ABHR) at entrances and exits of every public or private commercial building, including healthcare facilities (HCFs). Methods: Enumerators observed the HH materials present at the entrances and exits of 37 public HCFs in the Moroto and Kotido districts and patient and visitor use of those HH materials. When handwashing stations were nonfunctional or out of water, no HH observations were made. Results: Of the 37 HCF entrances and exits assessed, 4 (11%) met the recommended guidance for HH materials: 3 (8%) had water and soap, and 1 (3%) had ABHR and water and soap. In other HCFs, 12 (32%) had no HH station present, 13 (35%) handwashing stations had no water, and 8 (22%) had water but not soap. Of 180 persons observed, 52 (29%) attempted HH and only 10 (6%) used appropriate HH technologies (4 with ABHR and 6 with water and soap). Of 52 people who attempted HH, 42 (81%) used only water without soap. All HH observed occurred when entering facilities; no HH occurred when exiting (0 of 68). Of those 52 who performed HH, 48 (92%) performed HH for the recommended time of >20 seconds. However, only 9 (5%) of 180 adhered to suggested HH technologies and length of time (used water and soap scrubbing for ≥20 seconds or used ABHR). Conclusions: We detected poor HH practice by patrons at entrances and exits of HCFs, which may be due to lack of appropriate HH materials, particularly lack of soap. Optimal strategies for adherence to WHO-recommended HH practices at entrances and exits of public and private commercial buildings, including HCFs, should be explored.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

Background: Hand hygiene (HH) is a core element of patient safety and the single most essential strategy for preventing healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). Adherence to HH among healthcare workers (HCWs) varies greatly depending on a range of factors, including risk perceptions, institutional culture, auditing mechanisms, and availability of HH supplies. We observed HH compliance among HCWs to determine the factors influencing practices in tertiary healthcare facilities in Bangladesh. Methods: During September 2020–February 2021, we conducted nonparticipatory observations at 11 tertiary-care hospitals in Bangladesh using the WHO “Five Moments for Hand Hygiene” tool to record compliance among physicians, nurses, and cleaning staff. We also performed semistructured interviews to determine the key barriers to complying with hand hygiene. Furthermore, we noted the presence, location, and functionality of existing HH stations within each hospital ward. Results: We observed 14,668 HH opportunities among HCWs. The overall HH compliance was 25.3%, and compliance differed significantly by professional category (P < .001). Physicians had the highest HH compliance at 28.5% (2,264 of 7,930), followed by nurses at 25.4% (1,272 of 5,008). Cleaning staff had the lowest rates of HH at 9.9% (171 of 3,221). HCWs of public hospitals had significantly higher odds of complying with HH practices than those in private hospitals (27.4% vs 17.9%; aOR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.55–1.93; P < .001). HH compliance also varied by WHO Five Moments indicators. HCWs were 3 times more likely to perform HH ‘after touching a patient’ than ‘before touching patient’ (aOR, 3.36; 95% CI, 2.90–3.90; P < .001). Common barriers to using hand sanitizer were insufficient supply (57.9%), skin reaction (26.3%), shortage of time (14.5%), and lack of awareness (11.9%). Regarding handwashing with soap, inadequate supplies (27.0%), high workload (26.3%), and lack of facilities (22.7%) were the key factors for low adherence. The HH infrastructure observation in 82 wards showed that running water and soap were available in 168 (86.2%) of 195 HCW-designated basins, compared to 51 (35.9%) of 142 for the patient- and attendant-assigned basins. Handwashing posters were found in only 44 (13.1%) of 337 basin surroundings, and no hand drying supplies were observed for patients or attendants. Conclusions: Hand hygiene compliance among HCWs fall significantly short of the standard for safe patient care. Inadequate HH supplies in a resource-constrained setting like Bangladesh demonstrates a lack of leadership in prioritizing, promoting, and investing in infection prevention and control. The findings of this study might help to motivate and design interventions for HH compliance, which will help reduce HAIs in the hospital setting.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None