Background: The burden of hospital-associated infections (HAIs) and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in Latin America is high. Improving engagement by healthcare workers (HCWs) in infection prevention and control (IPC) may lead to better patient outcomes; however, little is known about HCW perceptions of IPC in the region. We sought to understand HCW perceptions of IPC processes and practices. Methods: During August–September 2022, HCWs from 30 hospitals with IPC programs in 4 Latin American countries (Panama, Guatemala, Ecuador, and Argentina) were invited to participate in an electronic, voluntary, anonymous survey about their perceptions of IPC at their hospitals. Physicians, nurses, and environmental care (EVC) personnel were prioritized for recruitment. All respondents were asked 18 questions; IPC team members were asked 5 additional questions about specific activities implemented by IPC programs, how data are used, and how IPC could be improved. Answers with 5-point Likert scale responses were categorized into 2 groups (eg, strongly agree or agree vs neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree) for analysis. Results: Of 1,252 HCWs who completed the survey, 181 (14%) were IPC team members, 1,095 (87%) had direct patient contact, and 1,156 (92%) worked >20 hours per week. Figure 1 shows participant characteristics. Most participants (56%) rated their IPC program as very good, 38% rated it as good, and 6% rated it as bad. Physicians were less likely to give a favorable rating. Compliance with prevention bundles and hand hygiene (HH) by colleagues was rated as poor by 28% and 22% of HCWs, respectively; however, only 11% and 5% indicated that their own compliance was poor, respectively. Also, 25% of participants reported not receiving or only occasionally receiving HH compliance data. Similarly, 41% of participants reported not receiving HAI data on a regular basis, and 19% of IPC nurses reported not receiving data despite being responsible for conducting surveillance. Furthermore, 41% of respondents indicated not receiving or only occasionally receiving IPC training or education relevant to their role. When asked about the safety climate, 16% of participants reported not feeling appreciated. In addition, 22% of IPC nurses and 37% of individuals in the “other” category (eg, health technicians and therapists) were more likely to report this. When IPC team members were asked how frequently specific activities were conducted (Fig. 2), several opportunities for improvement were identified, including improving HCW access to HH data and development of strategic plans. Conclusions: Improving HCW access to training on IPC and to data on HAI burden and compliance with HH and prevention bundles should be emphasized in Latin American hospitals.

Disclosures: None

Background: Environmental cleaning is critical in preventing pathogen transmission and potential consecutive healthcare-acquired infections. In operating rooms (ORs), multiple invasive procedures increase the infectious risk for patients, making proper cleaning and disinfection of environmental surfaces of paramount importance. A human-factors engineering (HFE) approach emphasizing the impact of the entire work system on care processes and outcomes has been proposed to improve environmental cleaning. Using the lens of this HFE approach, we conducted a systematic review to synthesize existing evidence and identify gaps in the literature on OR cleaning. Methods: The systematic review was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and limited to English-written, peer-reviewed journal articles reporting empirical studies on OR cleaning. Figure 1 shows the flowchart of study search and screening. The following data were extracted from each included article: (1) general information of the article (eg, first author, title, journal, year of publication) and (2) characteristics of the study (eg, country, objectives, design, outcome measures and measuring techniques, findings, funding source). In addition, work-system elements (eg, people, tasks, tools and technologies, physical environment, organizational conditions) and cleaning processes (eg, turnover cleaning, terminal cleaning) addressed in each included studywere coded based on the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) model. The methodological quality of included studies using a (non)randomized controlled design was assessed using the version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials. Results: In total, 35 studies were included in this review, among which 10 examined the effectiveness of OR cleaning in reducing environmental contamination (Fig. 2), 1 examined the compliance of OR cleaning practices (Fig. 3), and 24 examined interventions for improving OR cleaning effectiveness and/or compliance (Fig. 4). Figure 5 summarizes the characteristics of the included studies. Conclusions: In this review, OR cleaning was inconsistently performed in practice, and mixed findings were reported regarding the effectiveness of OR cleaning in reducing environmental contamination. No study has systematically examined work-system factors influencing OR cleaning. Efforts to improve OR cleaning focused on cleaning tools and technologies (eg, ultraviolet light) and staff monitoring and training. Interventions targeting the broader work system influencing the cleaning processes are lacking. The scientific rigor of the included studies was modest. Most studies were either commercially funded or did not reveal their funding sources, which might introduce a desirability bias.

Financial support: This study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Disclosures: None

Over the past two decades, the incidence of legionellosis has been steadily increasing in the United States though there is noclear explanation for the main factors driving the increase. While legionellosis is the leading cause of waterborne outbreaks in the US, most cases are sporadic and acquired in community settings where the environmental source is never identified. This scoping review aimed to summarise the drivers of infections in the USA and determine the magnitude of impact each potential driver may have. A total of 1,738 titles were screened, and 18 articles were identified that met the inclusion criteria. Strong evidence was found for precipitation as a major driver, and both temperature and relative humidity were found to be moderate drivers of incidence. Increased testing and improved diagnostic methods were classified as moderate drivers, and the ageing U.S. population was a minor driver of increasing incidence. Racial and socioeconomic inequities and water and housing infrastructure were found to be potential factors explaining the increasing incidence though they were largely understudied in the context of non-outbreak cases. Understanding the complex relationships between environmental, infrastructure, and population factors driving legionellosis incidence is important to optimise mitigation strategies and public policy.

Exposure investigations are labor intensive and vulnerable to recall bias. We developed an algorithm to identify healthcare personnel (HCP) interactions from the electronic health record (EHR), and we evaluated its accuracy against conventional exposure investigations. The EHR algorithm identified every known transmission and used ranking to produce a manageable contact list.

In total, 50 healthcare facilities completed a survey in 2021 to characterize changes in infection prevention and control and antibiotic stewardship practices. Notable findings include sustained surveillance for multidrug-resistant organisms but decreased use of human resource-intensive interventions compared to previous surveys in 2013 and 2018 conducted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmissions among healthcare workers and hospitalized patients are challenging to confirm. Investigation of infected persons often reveals multiple potential risk factors for viral acquisition. We combined exposure investigation with genomic analysis confirming 2 hospital-based clusters. Prolonged close contact with unmasked, unrecognized infectious, individuals was a common risk.

We analyzed the impact of a 7-day recurring asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 testing protocol for all patients hospitalized at a large academic center. Overall, 40 new cases were identified, and 1 of 3 occurred after 14 days of hospitalization. Recurring testing can identify unrecognized infections, especially during periods of elevated community transmission.

We surveyed acute-care hospitals on strategies to reduce inappropriate C. difficile testing and treatment of colonized patients. Decision support during C. difficile test ordering was common, but “hard stops” to prevent placement of inappropriate orders and active intervention of antimicrobial stewardship programs on positive C. difficile test reports were infrequent.

This SHEA white paper identifies knowledge gaps and challenges in healthcare epidemiology research related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with a focus on core principles of healthcare epidemiology. These gaps, revealed during the worst phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, are described in 10 sections: epidemiology, outbreak investigation, surveillance, isolation precaution practices, personal protective equipment (PPE), environmental contamination and disinfection, drug and supply shortages, antimicrobial stewardship, healthcare personnel (HCP) occupational safety, and return to work policies. Each section highlights three critical healthcare epidemiology research questions with detailed description provided in supplementary materials. This research agenda calls for translational studies from laboratory-based basic science research to well-designed, large-scale studies and health outcomes research. Research gaps and challenges related to nursing homes and social disparities are included. Collaborations across various disciplines, expertise and across diverse geographic locations will be critical.