Quantify the frequency and drivers of unreported coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) symptoms among nursing home (NH) staff.

Confidential telephone survey.

The study was conducted in 70 NHs in Orange County, California, December 2020–February 2022.

The study included 120 NH staff with COVID-19.

We designed a 40-item telephone survey of NH staff to assess COVID-19 symptom reporting behavior and types of barriers [monetary, logistic, and emotional (fear or stigma)] and facilitators of symptom reporting using 5-point Likert scales. Summary statistics, reliability of survey constructs, and construct and discriminant validity were assessed.

Overall, 49% of surveys were completed during the 2020–2021 COVID-19 winter wave and 51% were completed during severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) δ (delta)/ (omicron) waves, with a relatively even distribution of certified nursing assistants, licensed vocational or registered nurses, and nonfrontline staff. Most COVID-19 cases (71%) were detected during mandated weekly NH surveillance testing and most staff (67%) had ≥1 symptom prior to their test. Only 34% of those with symptoms disclosed their symptom to a supervisor. Responses were consistent across 8 discrete survey constructs with Cronbach α > 0.70. In the first wave of the pandemic, fear and lack of knowledge were drivers of symptom reporting. In later waves, adequate staffing and sick days were drivers of symptom reporting. COVID-19 help lines and encouragement from supervisors facilitated symptom reporting and testing.

Mandatory COVID-19 testing for NH staff is key to identifying staff COVID-19 cases due to reluctance to speak up about existing symptoms. Active encouragement from supervisors to report symptoms and stay home when ill was a major driver of symptom reporting and resultant infection prevention and worker safety measures.

We investigated a decrease in antibiotic prescribing for respiratory illnesses in 2 academic urgent-care clinics during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic using semistructured clinician interviews.

We conducted a quality-improvement project from November 2020 to May 2021. We investigated provider antibiotic decision making using a mixed-methods explanatory design including interviews. We analyzed transcripts using a thematic framework approach to identify emergent themes. Our performance measure was antibiotic prescribing rate (APR) for encounters with respiratory diagnosis billing codes. We extracted billing and prescribing data from the electronic medical record and assessed differences using run charts, p charts and generalized linear regression.

We observed significant reductions in the APR early during the COVID-19 pandemic (relative risk [RR], 0.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.17–0.25), which was maintained over the study period (P < .001). The average APRs were 14% before the COVID-19 pandemic, 4% during the QI project, and 7% after the project. All providers prescribed less antibiotics for respiratory encounters during COVID-19, but only 25% felt their practice had changed. Themes from provider interviews included changing patient expectations and provider approach to respiratory encounters during COVID-19, the impact of increased telemedicine encounters, and the changing epidemiology of non–COVID-19 respiratory infections.

Our findings suggest that the decrease in APR was likely multifactorial. The average APR decreased significantly during the pandemic. Although the APR was slightly higher after the QI project, it did not reach prepandemic levels. Future studies should explore how these factors, including changing patient expectations, can be leveraged to improve urgent-care antibiotic stewardship.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused a global health crisis and may have affected healthcare-associated infection (HAI) prevention strategies. We evaluated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on HAI incidence in Brazilian intensive care units (ICUs).

In this ecological study, we compared adult patients admitted to the ICU from April through June 2020 (pandemic period) with the same period in 2019 (prepandemic period) in 21 Brazilian hospitals. We used the Wilcoxon signed rank-sum test in a pairwise analysis to compare the following differences between the pandemic and the prepandemic periods: microbiologically confirmed central-line–associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) incidence density (cases per 1,000 central line and ventilator days, respectively), the proportion of organisms that caused HAI, and antibiotic consumption (DDD).

We detected a significant increase in median CLABSI incidence during the pandemic: 1.60 (IQR, 0.44–4.20) vs 2.81 (IQR, 1.35–6.89) (P = .002). We did not detect a significant difference in VAP incidence between the 2 periods. In addition, we detected a significant increase in the proportion of CLABSI caused by Enterococcus faecalis and Candida spp during the pandemic, although only the latter retained statistical significance after correction for multiple comparisons. We did not detect a significant change in ceftriaxone, piperacillin–tazobactam, meropenem, or vancomycin consumption between the studied periods.

There was an increase in CLABSI incidence in Brazilian ICUs during the first months of COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, we detected an increase in the proportion of CLABSI caused by E. faecalis and Candida spp during this period. CLABSI prevention strategies must be reinforced in ICUs during the COVID-19 pandemic.

To examine temporal changes in coverage with a complete primary series of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination and staffing shortages among healthcare personnel (HCP) working in nursing homes in the United States before, during, and after the implementation of jurisdiction-based COVID-19 vaccination mandates for HCP.

HCP in nursing homes from 15 US jurisdictions.

We analyzed weekly COVID-19 vaccination data reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Healthcare Safety Network from June 7, 2021, through January 2, 2022. We assessed 3 periods (preintervention, intervention, and postintervention) based on the announcement of vaccination mandates for HCP in 15 jurisdictions. We used interrupted time-series models to estimate the weekly percentage change in vaccination with complete primary series and the odds of reporting a staffing shortage for each period.

Complete primary series vaccination among HCP increased from 66.7% at baseline to 94.3% at the end of the study period and increased at the fastest rate during the intervention period for 12 of 15 jurisdictions. The odds of reporting a staffing shortage were lowest after the intervention.

These findings demonstrate that COVID-19 vaccination mandates may be an effective strategy for improving HCP vaccination coverage in nursing homes without exacerbating staffing shortages. These data suggest that mandates can be considered to improve COVID-19 coverage among HCP in nursing homes to protect both HCP and vulnerable nursing home residents.

We assessed the implementation of telehealth-supported stewardship activities in acute-care units and long-term care (LTC) units in Veterans’ Administration medical centers (VAMCs).

Before-and-after, quasi-experimental implementation effectiveness study with a baseline period (2019–2020) and an intervention period (2021).

The study was conducted in 3 VAMCs without onsite infectious disease (ID) support.

The study included inpatient providers at participating sites who prescribe antibiotics.

During 2021, an ID physician met virtually 3 times per week with the stewardship pharmacist at each participating VAMC to review patients on antibiotics in acute-care units and LTC units. Real-time feedback on prescribing antibiotics was given to providers. Additional implementation strategies included stakeholder engagement, education, and quality monitoring.

The reach–effectiveness–adoption–implementation–maintenance (RE-AIM) framework was used for program evaluation. The primary outcome of effectiveness was antibiotic days of therapy (DOT) per 1,000 days present aggregated across all 3 sites. An interrupted time-series analysis was performed to compare this rate during the intervention and baseline periods. Electronic surveys, periodic reflections, and semistructured interviews were used to assess other RE-AIM outcomes.

The telehealth program reviewed 502 unique patients and made 681 recommendations to 24 providers; 77% of recommendations were accepted. After program initiation, antibiotic DOT immediately decreased in the LTC units (−30%; P < .01) without a significant immediate change in the acute-care units (+16%; P = .22); thereafter DOT remained stable in both settings. Providers generally appreciated feedback and collaborative discussions.

The implementation of our telehealth program was associated with reductions in antibiotic use in the LTC units but not in the smaller acute-care units. Overall, providers perceived the intervention as acceptable. Wider implementation of telehealth-supported stewardship activities may achieve reductions in antibiotic use.

Dental healthcare personnel (DHCP) are at high risk of exposure to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We sought to identify how DHCP changed their use of personal protective equipment (PPE) as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to pilot an educational video designed to improve knowledge of proper PPE use.

The study comprised 2 sets of semistructured qualitative interviews.

The study was conducted in 8 dental clinics in a Midwestern metropolitan area.

In total, 70 DHCP participated in the first set of interviews; 63 DHCP participated in the second set of interviews.

In September–November 2020 and March–October 2021, we conducted 2 sets of semistructured interviews: (1) PPE use in the dental community during COVID-19, and (2) feedback on the utility of an educational donning and doffing video.

Overall, 86% of DHCP reported having prior training. DHCP increased the use of PPE during COVID-19, specifically N95 respirators and face shields. DHCP reported real-world challenges to applying infection control methods, often resulting in PPE modification and reuse. DHCP reported double masking and sterilization methods to extend N95 respirator use. Additional challenges to PPE included shortages, comfort or discomfort, and compatibility with specialty dental equipment. DHCP found the educational video helpful and relevant to clinical practice. Fewer than half of DHCP reported exposure to a similar video.

DHCP experienced significant challenges related to PPE access and routine use in dental clinics during the COVID-19 pandemic. An educational video improved awareness and uptake of appropriate PPE use among DHCP.

Some manufacturers provide information on similar-fit model pairings of filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs), suggesting that fit-test outcome of one model helps predict the other. This guidance may be useful during crisis capacity when FFR supplies and/or fit tests are constrained. The purpose of this study was to compare quantitative fit-test (QNFT) results and concordance between a pair of similar-fit 3M Aura FFRs: the 3M 9320A+ and 3M 1870+.

All participants completed online training and a QNFT with both respirators. The order of the respirator being examined first was randomly allocated. The outcomes included QNFT pass rate, concordance between the 2 models, overall and individual fit factors, and percentage of male and female participants who passed or failed the QNFT.

We recruited 1,000 participants (668 females and 332 males). The QNFT pass rate, overall fit factors, and individual fit factors were significantly higher for the 3M 9320A+ than the 3M 1870+ FFR. The concordance between the models was “fair” (κ coefficient, 0.38). Male participants who passed a QNFT with either of the FFRs had 96% chance of passing the QNFT for the alternate model. Female participants who passed the 3M 1870+ had 97% chance of passing the QNFT for the 3M 9320A+ model. However, ∼1 in 12 females who passed the QNFT for the 3M 9320A+ failed the QNFT for the 3M 1870+ FFR.

Similar-fit paired FFR models may provide a consequentially different level of respiratory protection, especially for women. Our findings are important for FFR stockpiling and fit-testing strategies, especially during crisis capacity.