The COVID-19 has had major direct (e.g., deaths) and indirect (e.g., social inequities) effects in the United States. While the public health response to the epidemic featured some important successes (e.g., universal masking ,and rapid development and approval of vaccines and therapeutics), there were systemic failures (e.g., inadequate public health infrastructure) that overshadowed these successes. Key deficiency in the U.S. response were shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) and supply chain deficiencies. Recommendations are provided for mitigating supply shortages and supply chain failures in healthcare settings in future pandemics. Some key recommendations for preventing shortages of essential components of infection control and prevention include increasing the stockpile of PPE in the U.S. National Strategic Stockpile, increased transparency of the Stockpile, invoking the Defense Production Act at an early stage, and rapid review and authorization by FDA/EPA/OSHA of non-U.S. approved products. Recommendations are also provided for mitigating shortages of diagnostic testing, medications and medical equipment.

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.

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

The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology in America (SHEA) strongly supports modernization of data collection processes and the creation of publicly available data repositories that include a wide variety of data elements and mechanisms for securely storing both cleaned and uncleaned data sets that can be curated as clinical and research needs arise. These elements can be used for clinical research and quality monitoring and to evaluate the impacts of different policies on different outcomes. Achieving these goals will require dedicated, sustained and long-term funding to support data science teams and the creation of central data repositories that include data sets that can be “linked” via a variety of different mechanisms and also data sets that include institutional and state and local policies and procedures. A team-based approach to data science is strongly encouraged and supported to achieve the goal of a sustainable, adaptable national shared data resource.

Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. This study described outcomes associated with mandatory infectious diseases (ID) consultation in hospitalized patients with CDI. ID consultation was associated with increased appropriate concomitant antibiotic use, however longer courses of concomitant antibiotics were administered.

Since the initial publication of A Compendium of Strategies to Prevent Healthcare-Associated Infections in Acute Care Hospitals in 2008, the prevention of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) has continued to be a national priority. Progress in healthcare epidemiology, infection prevention, antimicrobial stewardship, and implementation science research has led to improvements in our understanding of effective strategies for HAI prevention. Despite these advances, HAIs continue to affect ∼1 of every 31 hospitalized patients,1 leading to substantial morbidity, mortality, and excess healthcare expenditures,1 and persistent gaps remain between what is recommended and what is practiced.

The widespread impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on HAI outcomes2 in acute-care hospitals has further highlighted the essential role of infection prevention programs and the critical importance of prioritizing efforts that can be sustained even in the face of resource requirements from COVID-19 and future infectious diseases crises.3

The Compendium: 2022 Updates document provides acute-care hospitals with up-to-date, practical expert guidance to assist in prioritizing and implementing HAI prevention efforts. It is the product of a highly collaborative effort led by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA), the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA), the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC), the American Hospital Association (AHA), and The Joint Commission, with major contributions from representatives of organizations and societies with content expertise, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Pediatric Infectious Disease Society (PIDS), the Society for Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), the Society for Hospital Medicine (SHM), the Surgical Infection Society (SIS), and others.

A pseudo-outbreak of bronchoscopy-associated Mycobacterium chelonae and M. mucogenicum was traced to contaminated ice machine water and ice. A nonsterile ice bath was used to cool uncapped, sterile, saline syringes used to slow procedural bleeding. Joining the growing evidence of bronchoscopy pseudo-outbreaks, our investigation describes several lessons for future prevention.

Testing of asymptomatic patients for severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (ie, “asymptomatic screening) to attempt to reduce the risk of nosocomial transmission has been extensive and resource intensive, and such testing is of unclear benefit when added to other layers of infection prevention mitigation controls. In addition, the logistic challenges and costs related to screening program implementation, data noting the lack of substantial aerosol generation with elective controlled intubation, extubation, and other procedures, and the adverse patient and facility consequences of asymptomatic screening call into question the utility of this infection prevention intervention. Consequently, the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) recommends against routine universal use of asymptomatic screening for SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare facilities. Specifically, preprocedure asymptomatic screening is unlikely to provide incremental benefit in preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the procedural and perioperative environment when other infection prevention strategies are in place, and it should not be considered a requirement for all patients. Admission screening may be beneficial during times of increased virus transmission in some settings where other layers of controls are limited (eg, behavioral health, congregate care, or shared patient rooms), but widespread routine use of admission asymptomatic screening is not recommended over strengthening other infection prevention controls. In this commentary, we outline the challenges surrounding the use of asymptomatic screening, including logistics and costs of implementing a screening program, and adverse patient and facility consequences. We review data pertaining to the lack of substantial aerosol generation during elective controlled intubation, extubation, and other procedures, and we provide guidance for when asymptomatic screening for SARS-CoV-2 may be considered in a limited scope.

This consensus statement by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and the Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine (AMDA), the Association for Professionals in Epidemiology and Infection Control (APIC), the HIV Medicine Association (HIVMA), the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society (PIDS), and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists (SIDP) recommends that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination should be a condition of employment for all healthcare personnel in facilities in the United States. Exemptions from this policy apply to those with medical contraindications to all COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States and other exemptions as specified by federal or state law. The consensus statement also supports COVID-19 vaccination of nonemployees functioning at a healthcare facility (eg, students, contract workers, volunteers, etc).

Background: Nearly half of hospitalized patients with bacteriuria or treated for pneumonia receive unnecessary antibiotics (noninfectious or nonbacterial syndrome such as asymptomatic bacteriuria), excess duration (antibiotics prescribed for longer than necessary), or avoidable fluoroquinolones (safer alternative available) at hospital discharge.1–3 However, whether antibiotic overuse at discharge varies between hospitals or is associated with patient outcomes remains unknown. Methods: From July 2017 to December 2018, trained abstractors at 46 Michigan hospitals collected detailed data on a sample of adult, non–intensive care, hospitalized patients with bacteriuria (positive urine culture with or without symptoms) or treated for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP; includes those with the disease formerly known as healthcare-associated pneumonia [HCAP]). Antibiotic prescriptions at discharge were assessed for antibiotic overuse using a previously described, guideline-based hierarchical algorithm.3 Here, we report the proportion of patients discharged with antibiotic overuse by the hospital. We also assessed hospital-level correlation (using Pearson’s correlation coefficient) between antibiotic overuse at discharge for patients with bacteriuria and patients treated for CAP. Finally, we assessed the association of antibiotic overuse at discharge with patient outcomes (mortality, readmission, emergency department visit, and antibiotic-associated adverse events) at 30 days using logit generalized estimating equations adjusted for patient characteristics and probability of treatment. Results: Of 17,081 patients (7,207 with bacteriuria; 9,874 treated for pneumonia), nearly half (42.2%) had antibiotic overuse at discharge (36.3% bacteriuria and 51.1% pneumonia). The percentage of patients discharged with antibiotic overuse varied 5-fold among hospitals from 14.7% (95% CI, 8.0%–25.3%) to 74.3% (95% CI, 64.2%–83.8%). Hospital rates of antibiotic overuse at discharge were strongly correlated between bacteriuria and CAP (Pearson’s correlation coefficient, 0.76; P ≤ .001) (Fig. 1). In adjusted analyses, antibiotic overuse at discharge was not associated with death, readmission, emergency department visit, or Clostridioides difficile infection. However, each day of overuse was associated with a 5% increase in the odds of patient-reported antibiotic-associated adverse events after discharge (Fig. 2). Conclusions: Antibiotic overuse at discharge was common, varied widely between hospitals, and was associated with patient harm. Furthermore, antibiotic overuse at discharge was strongly correlated between 2 disparate diseases, suggesting that prescribing culture or discharge processes—rather than disease-specific factors—contribute to overprescribing at discharge. Thus, discharge stewardship may be needed to target multiple diseases.

Funding: This study was supported by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America and by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network.

Disclosures: Valerie M. Vaughn reports contracted research for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan, the Department of VA, the NIH, the SHEA, and the APIC. She also reports receipt of funds from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation Speaker’s Bureau, the CDC, the Pew Research Trust, Sepsis Alliance, and the Hospital and Health System Association of Pennsylvania.

Background:Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are frequently used to deliver intravenous (IV) antibiotic therapy after discharge from the hospital. Infectious disease (ID) physicians are often consulted prior to PICC placement, but whether their approval influences PICC appropriateness and complications is not known. Methods: Using data from the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium (HMS) on PICCs placed in critically ill and hospitalized medical patients between January 1, 2015, and July 26, 2019, we examined the association between ID physician approval of PICC insertion for IV antibiotics and device appropriateness and outcomes. Appropriateness was defined according to the Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC) as a composite measure of (1) avoiding PICC use for durations ≤5 days; (2) using single-lumen instead of multilumen catheters; and (3) avoiding PICC use in patients with chronic kidney disease (eGFR>45 mL/min). The associations between ID approval of PICC use and odds of PICC-related complications (eg, deep vein thrombosis, central-line–associated bloodstream infection, and catheter occlusion) were also assessed. Multivariable models adjusting for patient severity of illness and hospital-level clustering were fit to both outcomes. Results were expressed as odds ratios (ORs) with corresponding 95% CIs. Results: Data from 36,594 patients who underwent PICC placement across 42 Michigan hospitals were included in the analysis. In total, 21,653 (55%) PICCs were placed for the indication of IV antibiotics; 14,935 (69%) of these had a documented ID consultation prior to placement, whereas 6,718 (31%) did not. Of the 14,935 PICCs with an ID consultation, 10,238 (69%) had ID approval documented prior to device placement (Fig. 1). Compared to no approval, PICCs approved by ID prior to insertion were more likely to be appropriate (OR, 3.51; 95% CI, 3.28–3.77; P < .001). Specifically, approval was associated with higher single-lumen use (OR, 5.13; 95% CI, 4.72–5.58; P < .001), less placement of PICCs with dwell times ≤ 5 days (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.25–0.32; P < .001), and less frequent use in patients with chronic kidney disease (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73–0.87; P < .001). ID approval of PICCs prior to insertion was associated with a significantly lower odds of PICC-related complications (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.51–0.64) (Table 1). Conclusions: ID approval of PICC use for IV antibiotic therapy in hospitalized patients was associated with greater appropriateness and fewer complications. Policies aimed at ensuring ID review prior to PICC use may help improve patient and device safety.

Funding: None

Disclosures:Valerie M. Vaughn reports contract research for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan, the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, the NIH, the SHEA, and the APIC. She also reports fees from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation Speaker’s Bureau, the CDC, the Pew Research Trust, Sepsis Alliance, and The Hospital and Health System Association of Pennsylvania.