Background: Hospitals are increasingly consolidating into networks and integrating infection prevention (IP) into system infection prevention programs (SIPP). Very little has been published about these programs. This survey sheds light on the current state of SIPPs. Methods: We used the survey generator Alchemer.com for setting up the questionnaire, and tested a beta version among peers. The final version was sent out to SHEA Research Network participants in August 2023. Raw data was compiled and analyzed. Results: Forty institutions responded (40/104, 38%), of which 25 (63%) had SIPPs. These SIPPS reported health systems with a median of 4.5 acute care hospitals (range, 1-33); 16 SIPPS reported a median of 2 critical access hospitals (range, 1-8); 4 SIPPs reported 1-3 LTACHs, and 6 SIPPS reported a median of 1.5 nursing homes. All except 3 (88%) contained an academic center; 48% (11/23) of the U.S. based programs operate in multiple states. Four programs have been in place >20 years, four < 2 years, and the remainder a median of 8 years (range, 2-18). Physician directors also have clinical (20/25, 80%), teaching (19/25, 76%), research (15/25, 60%), antimicrobial stewardship (8/25, 32%), quality (8/25, 32%), and/or patient safety (5/25, 20%) roles. Seventeen (68%) report having a written job description. Nineteen (76%) report having an infection preventionist in a system IP director role; only 7/25 (28%) have a dedicated system IP team that operates independent of individual hospitals. Sixteen (64%) report administrative support, 10/25 (40%) have a data manager/analyst, and 4/25 (16%) include IT expert or programmer support. 15/25 (60%) report having done a formal system-wide IP needs assessment. While 16/25 (64%) have some automation in HAI surveillance (predominantly using Bugsy [Epic] or Theradoc [Premier]), while only 5/25 (20%) run fully automated surveillance. 10/25 (40%) have implemented centralized surveillance. 12/25 (48%) have “system IP policies” that are hierarchically above individual site policies. The biggest challenges appear to be gaps in 1) clear governing structure, 2) communication, 3) consistent staffing, 4) data management support, and 5) dedicated, empowered IP expert FTEs. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first U.S. survey to explore present-day system infection prevention. In this sample of hospital networks, we found heterogeneity in the structure, staffing and resources for system IP with significant opportunities for improvement. In this era of healthcare consolidation, our findings highlight the urgent need to more clearly delineate and support system IP needs in order to enhance their functionality.

In recent years, it has become increasingly evident that surveillance metrics for invasive device-associated infections (ie, central-line–associated bloodstream infections, ventilator-associated pneumonias, and catheter-associated urinary tract infections) do not capture all harms; they capture only a subset of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). Although prevention of device-associated infections remains critical, we need to address the full spectrum of potential harms from device use and non–device-associated infections. These include complications associated with additional devices, such as peripheral venous and arterial catheters, non–device-associated infections such as nonventilator hospital-acquired pneumonia, and noninfectious device complications such as trauma, thrombosis, and acute lung injury. As authors of the device-associated infection sections in the SHEA/IDSA/APIC Compendium of Strategies to Prevent Healthcare-Associated Infections in Acute Care Hospitals, we highlight catheter-associated urinary tract infection as an example of the strengths and limitations of the current emphasis on device-associated infection surveillance, suggest performance metrics that present a more comprehensive picture of patient harm, and provide a high-level overview of similar issues with other infection surveillance measures.

This survey of infectious disease providers on long COVID care revealed a lack of familiarity with existing resources, a sentiment of missing guidelines, and scarcity of dedicated care centers. The low response rate suggests that infectious disease specialists do not consider themselves as the primary providers of long COVID care.

In this overview, we articulate research needs and opportunities in the field of infection prevention that have been identified from insights gained during operative infection prevention work, our own research in healthcare epidemiology, and from reviewing the literature. The 10 areas of research need are: 1) Transmissions and interruptions, 2) personal protective equipment and other safety issues in occupational health, 3) climate change and other crises, 4) device, diagnostic, and antimicrobial stewardship, 5) implementation and deimplementation, 6) healthcare outside the acute care hospital, 7) low- and middle-income countries, 8) networking with the “neighbors,” 9) novel research methodologies, and 10) the future state of surveillance. An introduction and chapters 1–5 are presented in part I of the article and chapters 6-10 and the discussion in part II. There are many barriers to advancing the field, such as finding and motivating the future IP workforce including professionals interested in conducting research, a constant confrontation with challenges and crises, the difficulty of performing studies in a complex environment, the relative lack of adequate incentives and funding streams, and how to disseminate and validate the often very local quality improvement projects. Addressing research gaps now (i.e., in the post-pandemic phase) will make healthcare systems more resilient when facing future crises.

In this overview, we articulate research needs and opportunities in the field of infection prevention that have been identified from insights gained during operative infection prevention work, our own research in healthcare epidemiology, and from reviewing the literature. The 10 areas of research need are: 1) transmissions and interruptions, 2) personal protective equipment and other safety issues in occupational health, 3) climate change and other crises, 4) device, diagnostic, and antimicrobial stewardship, 5) implementation and de-implementation, 6) health care outside the acute care hospital, 7) low- and middle-income countries, 8) networking with the “neighbors”, 9) novel research methodologies, and 10) the future state of surveillance. An introduction and chapters 1–5 are presented in part I of the article, and chapters 6–10 and the discussion in part II. There are many barriers to advancing the field, such as finding and motivating the future IP workforce including professionals interested in conducting research, a constant confrontation with challenges and crises, the difficulty of performing studies in a complex environment, the relative lack of adequate incentives and funding streams, and how to disseminate and validate the often very local quality improvement projects. Addressing research gaps now (i.e., in the postpandemic phase) will make healthcare systems more resilient when facing future crises.

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.

Group Name: Watussi Study Group

Background: A positive safety climate is an important precursor of safe care outcomes. However, only limited evidence supports the association of low surgical-site infection (SSI) rates and positive safety climate. We investigated the role that perceptions of SSI prevention measures play for both safety climate level and strength as a subjective norm, that is, the social pressure perceived to perform the prevention measures, commitment to observe SSI prevention measures despite other situational pressures, and the level of knowledge about the prevention measures. Methods: The safety climate scale of the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire and 3 scales assessing subjective norm, commitment, and knowledge were used. All items were translated and retranslated from German to French and to Italian. All translated scales were pretested for understandability. Operating room (OR) personnel in 54 Swiss acute-care hospitals were surveyed, resulting in 2,769 analyzed responses with data aggregated on the hospital level. Two regression analyses were conducted: one using the percentage of positive responses per hospital as a safety climate level indicator, and another using the standard deviation of the safety climate ratings per hospital as a safety climate strength indicator. As independent variables, the hospital means of subjective norm, commitment, and knowledge were investigated and appropriately adjusted for number of respondents and sample composition. Results: The sample consisted of 1,495 nurses (54%) and 1,101 physicians (40%). Commitment and subjective norm were significant predictors (p < 0.001 and p < .05, respectively) of safety climate level, in the expected positive direction, but KNOW was not (R2, adjusted: 0.48); for safety climate strength, only COM was significant p < 0.001 (R2, adjusted: 0.27). Conclusions: The extent to which OR personnel were committed to perform the measures, such as timely administration of antibiotics, was associated with their safety climate rating level and strength. Thus, the rather general safety climate assessments are related to more specific safety behaviors necessary to achieve good outcomes such as low infection rates. Subjective norm was related to safety climate level only, indicating that in work environments with a good safety climate, the perceived social pressure to adhere to infection prevention measures may be higher. Knowledge about SSI prevention had no significant impact on safety climate, pointing to future research regarding the role of education in implementing prevention measures. Investigating how attitudes and knowledge about measures to prevent specific patient safety outcomes furthers our understanding of the role of safety climate in patient safety improvement.

Funding: No

Disclosures: None

We introduced a pragmatic concept of on site droplet precautions instead of single room isolation for rural hospitals in a tiered network. A survey among healthcare workers revealed that this approach was considered comprehensive, safe, and acceptable. This concept could be an alternative for hospitals with few single rooms available for isolation.

Afternoon aortic valve replacement surgery may provide perioperative myocardial protection and improve patient outcomes compared with morning surgery. The results of our large observational study based on Swiss cardiac surgical site infection surveillance data suggest that the current evidence is insufficient to generally promote afternoon cardiac surgeries.