Diagnostic stewardship seeks to improve ordering, collection, performance, and reporting of tests. Test results play an important role in reportable HAIs. The inclusion of HAIs in public reporting and pay for performance programs has highlighted the value of diagnostic stewardship as part of infection prevention initiatives. Inappropriate testing should be discouraged, and approaches that seek to alter testing solely to impact a reportable metric should be avoided. HAI definitions should be further adapted to new testing technologies, with focus on actionable and clinically relevant test results that will improve patient care.

Throughout history, pandemics and their aftereffects have spurred society to make substantial improvements in healthcare. After the Black Death in 14th century Europe, changes were made to elevate standards of care and nutrition that resulted in improved life expectancy.1 The 1918 influenza pandemic spurred a movement that emphasized public health surveillance and detection of future outbreaks and eventually led to the creation of the World Health Organization Global Influenza Surveillance Network.2 In the present, the COVID-19 pandemic exposed many of the pre-existing problems within the US healthcare system, which included (1) a lack of capacity to manage a large influx of contagious patients while simultaneously maintaining routine and emergency care to non-COVID patients; (2) a “just in time” supply network that led to shortages and competition among hospitals, nursing homes, and other care sites for essential supplies; and (3) longstanding inequities in the distribution of healthcare and the healthcare workforce. The decades-long shift from domestic manufacturing to a reliance on global supply chains has compounded ongoing gaps in preparedness for supplies such as personal protective equipment and ventilators. Inequities in racial and socioeconomic outcomes highlighted during the pandemic have accelerated the call to focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) within our communities. The pandemic accelerated cooperation between government entities and the healthcare system, resulting in swift implementation of mitigation measures, new therapies and vaccinations at unprecedented speeds, despite our fragmented healthcare delivery system and political divisions. Still, widespread misinformation or disinformation and political divisions contributed to eroded trust in the public health system and prevented an even uptake of mitigation measures, vaccines and therapeutics, impeding our ability to contain the spread of the virus in this country.3 Ultimately, the lessons of COVID-19 illustrate the need to better prepare for the next pandemic. Rising microbial resistance, emerging and re-emerging pathogens, increased globalization, an aging population, and climate change are all factors that increase the likelihood of another pandemic.4

We performed a literature review to describe the risk of surgical-site infection (SSI) in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) compared to standard open surgery. Most studies reported decreased SSI rates among patients undergoing MIS compared to open procedures. However, many were observational studies and may have been affected by selection bias. MIS is associated with reduced risk of surgical-site infection compared to standard open surgery and should be considered when feasible.

This white paper provides clinicians and hospital leaders with practical guidance on the prevention and control of viral respiratory infections in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). This document serves as a companion to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC)’s “Prophylaxis and Screening for Prevention of Viral Respiratory Infections in Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Patients: A Systematic Review.” It provides practical, expert opinion and/or evidence-based answers to frequently asked questions about viral respiratory detection and prevention in the NICU. It was developed by a writing panel of pediatric and pathogen-specific experts who collaborated with members of the HICPAC systematic review writing panel and the SHEA Pediatric Leadership Council to identify questions that should be addressed. The document has been endorsed by SHEA, the American Hospital Association (AHA), The Joint Commission, the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society (PIDS), the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC), the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), and the National Association of Neonatal Nurses (NANN).

In recent years, it has become increasingly evident that surveillance metrics for invasive device-associated infections (ie, central-line–associated bloodstream infections, ventilator-associated pneumonias, and catheter-associated urinary tract infections) do not capture all harms; they capture only a subset of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). Although prevention of device-associated infections remains critical, we need to address the full spectrum of potential harms from device use and non–device-associated infections. These include complications associated with additional devices, such as peripheral venous and arterial catheters, non–device-associated infections such as nonventilator hospital-acquired pneumonia, and noninfectious device complications such as trauma, thrombosis, and acute lung injury. As authors of the device-associated infection sections in the SHEA/IDSA/APIC Compendium of Strategies to Prevent Healthcare-Associated Infections in Acute Care Hospitals, we highlight catheter-associated urinary tract infection as an example of the strengths and limitations of the current emphasis on device-associated infection surveillance, suggest performance metrics that present a more comprehensive picture of patient harm, and provide a high-level overview of similar issues with other infection surveillance measures.

As the third edition of the Compendium of Strategies to Prevent Healthcare-Associated Infections in Acute Care Hospitals is released with the latest recommendations for the prevention and management of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs), a new approach to reporting HAIs is just beginning to unfold. This next generation of HAI reporting will be fully electronic and based largely on existing data in electronic health record (EHR) systems and other electronic data sources. It will be a significant change in how hospitals report HAIs and how the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other agencies receive this information. This paper outlines what that future electronic reporting system will look like and how it will impact HAI reporting.

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

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, many areas in the United States experienced healthcare personnel (HCP) shortages tied to a variety of factors. Infection prevention programs, in particular, faced increasing workload demands with little opportunity to delegate tasks to others without specific infectious diseases or infection control expertise. Shortages of clinicians providing inpatient care to critically ill patients during the early phase of the pandemic were multifactorial, largely attributed to increasing demands on hospitals to provide care to patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and furloughs.1 HCP shortages and challenges during later surges, including the Omicron variant-associated surges, were largely attributed to HCP infections and associated work restrictions during isolation periods and the need to care for family members, particularly children, with COVID-19. Additionally, the detrimental physical and mental health impact of COVID-19 on HCP has led to attrition, which further exacerbates shortages.2 Demands increased in post-acute and long-term care (PALTC) settings, which already faced critical staffing challenges difficulty with recruitment, and high rates of turnover. Although individual healthcare organizations and state and federal governments have taken actions to mitigate recurring shortages, additional work and innovation are needed to develop longer-term solutions to improve healthcare workforce resiliency. The critical role of those with specialized training in infection prevention, including healthcare epidemiologists, was well-demonstrated in pandemic preparedness and response. The COVID-19 pandemic underscored the need to support growth in these fields.3 This commentary outlines the need to develop the US healthcare workforce in preparation for future pandemics.

During the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, mathematical modeling has been widely used to understand epidemiological burden, trends, and transmission dynamics, to facilitate policy decisions, and, to a lesser extent, to evaluate infection prevention and control (IPC) measures. This review highlights the added value of using conventional epidemiology and modeling approaches to address the complexity of healthcare-associated infections (HAI) and antimicrobial resistance. It demonstrates how epidemiological surveillance data and modeling can be used to infer transmission dynamics in healthcare settings and to forecast healthcare impact, how modeling can be used to improve the validity of interpretation of epidemiological surveillance data, how modeling can be used to estimate the impact of IPC interventions, and how modeling can be used to guide IPC and antimicrobial treatment and stewardship decision-making. There are several priority areas for expanding the use of modeling in healthcare epidemiology and IPC. Importantly, modeling should be viewed as complementary to conventional healthcare epidemiological approaches, and this requires collaboration and active coordination between IPC, healthcare epidemiology, and mathematical modeling groups.