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.

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.

In this quasi-experimental study, implementing PX-UV to the standard environmental cleaning protocol was associated with a reduction in the overall incidence of multidrug-resistant (MDR) gram-negative organisms (P = .01) and MDR Acinetobacter baumannii (P = .001) in intervention intensive care units. However, the intervention did not reduce patient length of stay and 30-day mortality.

Intravesical Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) is a standard therapy for non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer used in urology clinics and inpatient settings. We present a review of infection risks to patients receiving intravesical BCG, healthcare personnel who prepare and administer BCG, and other patients treated in facilities where BCG is prepared and administered. Knowledge of these risks and relevant regulations informs appropriate infection prevention measures.

Despite recent guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) allowing institutions to relax in-facility masking strategies and due to our evolving understanding of respiratory pathogen transmission during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, we propose an updated standard for universal precautions in healthcare settings: permanently including universal masking in routine patient-care interactions. Such a practice prioritizes safety for patients, healthcare providers (HCPs), and visitors.

In two studies, time preferences for financial gains and losses at delays of up to 50 years were elicited using three different methods: matching, fixed-sequence choice titration, and a dynamic “staircase” choice method. Matching was found to create fewer demand characteristics and to produce better fits with the hyperbolic model of discounting. The choice-based measures better predicted real-world outcomes such as smoking and payment of credit card debt. No consistent advantages were found for the dynamic staircase method over fixed-sequence titration.

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.

We compared the effectiveness of 4 sampling methods to recover Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae and Clostridioides difficile from contaminated environmental surfaces: cotton swabs, RODAC culture plates, sponge sticks with manual agitation, and sponge sticks with a stomacher. Organism type was the most important factor in bacterial recovery.

In this quasi-experimental study, implementing a procalcitonin and Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score (CPIS) successfully reduced inappropriate antibiotic use among severely-to-critically ill COVID-19 patients, multidrug-resistant organisms, and invasive fungal infections during the intervention period in 2 medical centers. However, this strategy did not improve inappropriate antibiotic use among mildly-to-moderately ill COVID-19 patients.