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.

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.

Background: Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is a serious healthcare-associated infection responsible for >12,000 US deaths annually. Overtesting can lead to antibiotic overuse and potential patient harm when patients are colonized with C. difficile, but not infected, yet treated. National guidelines recommend when testing is appropriate; occasionally, guideline-noncompliant testing (GNCT) may be warranted. A multidisciplinary group at UNC Medical Center (UNCMC) including the antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) used a best-practice alert in 2020 to improve diagnostic stewardship, to no effect. Evidence supports use of hard stops for this purpose, though less is known about provider acceptance. Methods: Beginning in May 2022, UNCMC implemented a hard stop in its electronic medical record system (EMR) for C. difficile GNCT orders, with exceptions to be approved by an ASP attending physician. Requests were retrospectively reviewed May–November 2022 to monitor for adverse patient outcomes and provider hard-stop compliance. The team exported data from the EMR (Epic Systems) and generated descriptive statistics in Microsoft Excel. Results: There were 85 GNCT orders during the study period. Most tests (62%) were reviewed by the ASP, and 38% sought non-ASP or no approval. Of the tests reviewed by the ASP, 33 (62%) were approved and 20 (38%) were not. Among tests not approved by the ASP, no patients subsequently received CDI-directed antibiotics, and 1 patient (5%) warranted same-admission CDI testing (negative). Of tests that circumvented ASP review, 18 (56%) ordering providers received a follow-up email from an associate chief medical officer to determine the rationale. No single response type dominated: 3 (17%) were unaware of the ASP review requirement, 2 (11%) indicated their patient’s uncharted refusal of laxatives, 2 (11%) indicated another patient-specific reason. Provider avoidance of the ASP approval mechanism decreased 38%, from 53% of noncompliant tests in month 1 to 33% of tests in month 6. Total tests orders dropped 15.5% from 1,129 during the same period in 2021 to 954 during the study period (95% CI, 13.4%–17.7%). Compliance with the guideline component requiring at least a 48-hour laxative-free interval prior to CDI testing increased from 85% (95% CI, 83%–87%) to 95% (95% CI, 93%–96%). CDI incidence rates decreased from 0.52 per 1,000 patient days (95% CI, 0.41–0.65) to 0.41 (95% CI, 0.32–0.53), though the change was neither significant at P = .05 nor attributable to any 1 intervention. Conclusions: Over time and with feedback to providers circumventing the exception process, providers accepted and used the hard stop, improving diagnostic stewardship and avoiding unneeded treatment.

Disclosures: None

Background: Central-line–associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) are linked to increased morbidity and mortality, longer hospital stays, and significantly higher healthcare costs. Infection prevention guidelines recommend line placement in specific insertion locations over others because of the relative risk of infection. The purpose of this study was to assess CLABSI rates by line type to determine whether some central lines had a lower risk of infection and should be recommended over others given similar clinical indications. Methods: At UNC Hospitals, data were obtained on central lines across a 3-year period (FY20–FY22) from the EMR (Epic Systems). Central lines were categorized as apheresis catheters, CVC lines (single, double, or triple lumen), hemodialysis catheters, introducer lines, pulmonary artery (PA) catheters, PICC lines (single, double, or triple lumen), port-a-catheters, trialysis catheters, or umbilical lines. The line type(s) associated with each CLABSI during the same period were recorded, and CLABSI rates by line type per 1,000 central-line days were calculated using SAS software. If an infection had >1 central-line device type associated, the infection was counted twice when calculating the CLABSI rate by line type. We calculated 95% CIs for each point estimate to assess for statistically significant differences in rates by line type. Results: During FY20–FY22, there were 264,425 central-line days and 458 CLABSIs, for an overall CLABSI rate of 1.73 CLABSIs per 1,000 central-line days. Also, 16% of patients with a CLABSI had >1 type of central line in place. Stratified data on CLABSI rates by each central-line type is presented in the Figure. CLABSI rates were highest in patients with apheresis lines (6.22; 95% CI, 3.96–9.35) and PA catheters (6.22; 95% CI, 3.54–10.20), and the lowest CLABSI rates occurred in patients with PICC lines (1.44; 95% CI, 1.19–1.73) and port-a-catheters (1.14; 95% CI, 0.89, 1.45). For both CVC and PICC lines, as the number of lumens increased from single to triple, CLABSI rates increased, from 0.91 to 2.63 and from 0.57 to 1.20, respectively. Conclusions: At our hospital, different types of central lines were associated with statistically higher CLABSI rates. Additionally, a higher number of lumens (triple vs single) in CVC and PICC lines were also associated with statistically higher CLABSI rates. These findings reinforce the importance of considering central-line type and number of lumens to minimize risk of CLABSI while ensuring that patients have the best line type based on their clinical needs.

Disclosures: None

The purpose of this document is to highlight practical recommendations to assist acute-care hospitals in prioritization and implementation of strategies to prevent healthcare-associated infections through hand hygiene. This document updates the Strategies to Prevent Healthcare-Associated Infections in Acute Care Hospitals through Hand Hygiene, published in 2014. This expert guidance document is sponsored by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology (SHEA). It is the product of a collaborative effort led by SHEA, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, the American Hospital Association, and The Joint Commission, with major contributions from representatives of a number of organizations and societies with content expertise.

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.

After implementing a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection prevention bundle, the incidence rate ratio (IRR) of non–severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (non–SARS-CoV-2) hospital-acquired respiratory viral infection (HA-RVI) was significantly lower than the IRR from the pre–COVID-19 period (IRR, 0.322; 95% CI, 0.266–0.393; P < .01). However, HA-RVIs incidence rates mirrored community RVI trends, suggesting that hospital interventions alone did not significantly affect HA-RVI incidence.

Background: SARS-CoV-2 N95 mask contamination in healthcare providers (HCPs) treating patients with COVID-19 is poorly understood. Method: We performed a prospective observational study of HCP N95 respirator SARS-CoV-2 contamination during aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) on SARS-CoV-2–positive patients housed in a COVID-19–specific unit at an academic medical center. Medical masks were used as surrogates for N95 respirators to avoid waste and were worn on top of HCP N95 respirators during study AGPs. Study masks were provided to HCPs while donning PPE and were retrieved during doffing. Additionally, during doffing, face shields were swabbed with Floq swabs premoistened with viral transport media (VTM) prior to disinfection. Medical masks were cut into 9 position-based pieces, placed in VTM, vortexed, and centrifuged (Fig. 1). RNA extraction and RT-PCR were completed on all samples. RT-PCR–positive samples underwent cell culture infection to detect cytopathic effects (CPE). Contamination was characterized by mask location and front and back of face shields. Patient COVID-19 symptoms were collected from routine clinical documentation. Study HCPs completed HCP-role–specific routine care (eg, assessing, administering medications, and maintaining oxygen supplementation) while in patient rooms and were observed by study team members. Results: We enrolled 31 HCPs between September and December 2021. HCP and patient characteristics are presented in Table 1. In total, 330 individual samples were obtained from 31 masks and 26 face shields among 12 patient rooms. Of the 330 samples, 0 samples were positive for SARS-CoV-2 via RT-PCR. Positive controls were successfully performed in the laboratory setting to confirm that the virus was recoverable using these methods. Notably, all samples were collected from HCPs caring for COVID-19 patients on high-flow, high-humidity Optiflow (AGP), with an average of 960 seconds (IQR, 525–1,680) spent in each room. In addition to Optiflow and routine care, study speech pathologists completed an additional AGP of fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing. Notably, 29 (94%) of 31 study HCP had physical contact with their patient. Conclusions: Overall, mask contamination in HCPs treating patients with COVID-19 undergoing AGPs was not detectable while wearing face shields, despite patient contact and performing AGP.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

Background: Working while ill, or presenteeism, has been documented at substantial levels among healthcare personnel (HCP) along with its consequences for both patient and HCP safety. Limited literature has been published on HCP presenteeism during the COVID-19 pandemic, and specific motivations for this behavior are not well described. Understanding both individual and systemic factors that contribute to presenteeism is key to reducing respiratory illness transmission in the healthcare setting. We characterized the frequency of and motivations for presenteeism in the workforce of a large academic medical center during the COVID-19 pandemic. Method: We deployed a voluntary, anonymous electronic survey to HCP at University of North Carolina (UNC) Medical Center in December 2021, which was approved by the UNC Institutional Review Board. We received 591 responses recruited through employee newsletters. Respondents recounted their frequency of presenteeism since March 2020, defined as coming to work feeling feverish plus cough and/or sore throat. In total, 24.6% reported presenteeism at least once, with 8.1% reporting twice and 5.3% 3 or more times. Asking more generally about any symptoms while working, the following were most common: headache (26%), sinus congestion (20%), sore throat (13%), cough (13%), and muscle aches (9.3%). Results: Motivations for presenteeism fell broadly into 4 categories: (1) perception of low risk for COVID-19 infection, (2) concerns about workplace culture and operations, (3) issues with sick leave, and (4) concerns about employment record and status. Among HCP reporting at least 1 instance, the most common motivations for presenteeism included feeling low risk for COVID-19 infection due to mild symptoms (59.9%), being vaccinated (50.6%), avoiding increasing colleagues’ workload (48.3%), avoiding employment record impact (39.6%), and saving sick days for other purposes (37.9%). Asked to identify a primary motivation, 40.3% reported feeling low risk for COVID-19 infection due to mild symptoms or vaccination, 21.2% reported a workplace culture issue (ie, increasing colleague workload, perception of weakness, responsibility for patients), 20.6% reported sick leave availability and use (including difficulty finding coverage) and 17.8% reported employment record ramifications including termination. Conclusions: This survey coincided with 2the onset of the SARS-CoV-2 ο (omicron) variant locally, and as such, risk perceptions and motivations for presenteeism may have changed. Responses were self-reported and generalizability is limited. Still, these results highlight the importance of risk messaging and demonstrate the many factors to be considered as potential presenteeism motivators. Mitigating these drivers is particularly critical during high-risk times such as pandemics or seasonal peaks of respiratory illness.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

Background: Although vaccine hesitancy has been an issue for many years, it has become a major point of contention in the effort to mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic. In August 2021, a large academic medical facility began capturing the vaccination status of admitted COVID-19–positive patients, as well as their interest in the COVID-19 vaccine. We performed a descriptive analysis on the characteristics of unvaccinated patients who contracted COVID-19 and their interest in receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. Methods: Patient history and physical (H&P) notes and demographic data were collected using the internal data warehouse sourced from the electronic medical record for all SARS-COV-2–positive inpatient admissions to UNC Medical Center and UNC Chatham from August 1, 2021, to January 11, 2022. Manual chart reviews of progress notes were completed for patients whose history was not recorded in the initial H&P. Demographic data were summarized by vaccine status overall and by interest in COVID-19 vaccine among unvaccinated patients. We performed χ2 to determine demographic differences between the interested and uninterested unvaccinated groups. Results: In total, 536 patients were admitted with COVID-19 from August 1, 2021, to January 11, 2022. Of these, 15% were fully vaccinated (2 doses mRNA plus 1 dose J&J); 5.4% were partially vaccinated; 75.7% were unvaccinated; and 2.9% had an unknown vaccination status. Demographic characteristics are presented in Table 1. The most common demographics were consistent among the fully vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, with the exception of sex and age group (Table 1). For those whose interest data were available (n = 164), 34% were uninterested in receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. Importantly, race and age were statistically significantly different (P < .05) between the unvaccinated interested and unvaccinated uninterested groups. Conclusions: Even after experiencing COVID-19 firsthand and being hospitalized, some people who remain uninterested in receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. This population had a statistically higher proportion of white and older individuals than the unvaccinated interested group. Recommendations from healthcare providers might not be effective in persuading this population to be vaccinated. Instead, grassroots alternatives might be more successful. Additional analysis should be considered on whether patients who expressed interest in COVID-19 vaccine received immunization.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

Overall, engagement and compliance from the crowd-sourced hand hygiene observation program, Clean-In-Clean-Out (CICO), were similar between 2019 (96.6%) and 2020 (96.7%) despite fluctuations within 2020 that reflected our hospital’s coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) experience. Shared responsibility and just-in-time reminders can allow manual hand hygiene observation models to be sustainable.

Initial assessments of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) preparedness revealed resource shortages and variations in infection prevention policies across US hospitals. Our follow-up survey revealed improvement in resource availability, increase in testing capacity, and uniformity in infection prevention policies. Most importantly, the survey highlighted an increase in staffing shortages and use of travel nursing.

Hospital-associated fungal infections from construction and renovation activities can be mitigated using an infection control risk assessment (ICRA) and implementation of infection prevention measures. The effectiveness of these measures depends on proper installation and maintenance. Consistent infection prevention construction rounding with feedback is key to ongoing compliance.