To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This white paper provides clinicians and hospital leaders with practical guidance on the prevention and control of viral respiratory infections in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). This document serves as a companion to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC)’s “Prophylaxis and Screening for Prevention of Viral Respiratory Infections in Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Patients: A Systematic Review.” It provides practical, expert opinion and/or evidence-based answers to frequently asked questions about viral respiratory detection and prevention in the NICU. It was developed by a writing panel of pediatric and pathogen-specific experts who collaborated with members of the HICPAC systematic review writing panel and the SHEA Pediatric Leadership Council to identify questions that should be addressed. The document has been endorsed by SHEA, the American Hospital Association (AHA), The Joint Commission, the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society (PIDS), the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology (APIC), the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), and the National Association of Neonatal Nurses (NANN).
Background: Infection prevention and control (IPC) competency is critical for healthcare personnel (HCP) and patient safety. In collaboration with the CDC new national IPC training collaborative called Project Firstline, the Oregon Health Authority’s (OHA) Healthcare Associated Infection (HAI) Program established a state-level program in 2021. The goal of Oregon Project Firstline is to provide relevant, accessible, and engaging IPC training materials for our state’s HCP. We assessed the IPC learning needs of Oregon’s healthcare workforce, and to understand the preferred methods and formats of training across the various HCP roles. Methods: OHA’s HAI program recruited HCP by distributing electronic surveys through multiple healthcare, regulatory, and public health partners’ email listservs and HCP-targeted newsletters. Survey responses were recorded from September 23 to December 10, 2021. The HAI program assessed respondents’ IPC knowledge, online and in-person job training preferences, frequently used training devices, and trusted sources for IPC information. An individual’s understanding of an IPC topic was categorized based on their self-assessed confidence in their knowledge and ability to teach the topic to others. In total, 6,382 surveyed responses were analyzed. Results: The average understanding among HCP was lowest in IPC topics relating to triage and isolation of contagious patients and fit testing of respiratory protection devices. For these topics, 3,208 HCP (66.21%) and 3,657 HCP (75.48%) HCP, respectively, did not understand the topic well enough to teach others (Fig. 1). The highest number of HCP (n = 2,512, 39.36%) requested additional training in methods on how to educate others about IPC topics (ie, “train the trainer”). Surveyed respondents most frequently used personal computers for job trainings in both work and at-home settings (n = 4,603, 72.12%) and 3,437 HCP (53.85%) were open to either in-person or remote formats for job education. The CDC and OHA were the most frequented and trusted IPC sources among surveyed HCP: 4,124 HCP (64.62%) and 3,584 HCP (56.16%), respectively. Conclusions: IPC is a critical topic in HCP training across all healthcare facility types and employee roles. Effective educational planning includes understanding the learners’ knowledge needs and preferred methods of learning. Our learning needs assessment identified important IPC knowledge gaps and will help ensure that our training courses will be offered in effective educational formats for Oregon’s diverse HCP. Future training will include appropriate triage of potentially infectious patients, respiratory fit testing, and general IPC “train the trainer” sessions. Additionally, we will offer both in-person and remote options.
Background: During this pandemic, the public has struggled to navigate the abundance of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation, and it is unclear how this misinformation has affected medical providers and their recommendations for patients. We sought to understand differences in COVID-19 vaccine knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes among Oregon healthcare provider types and regions of practice (rural, suburban, urban). Methods: A 36-question survey was constructed using Qualtrics with consultation from a survey methodologist. The survey was reviewed and approved by OHSU IRB and distributed via listserv or social media posting to provider societies in Oregon, including nurse practitioners (NPs), naturopathic doctors (NDs), physician assistants (PAs), doctors of medicine (MDs), doctors of osteopathic medicine (DOs), or practioners with a bachelor of medicine–bachelor of surgery (MBBS), and via the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) immunization practice listserv. The survey accepted responses from July 9 to August 12, 2021. Participants were volunteers and responses were anonymous. Results: We collected 101 responses. Among them, 87 participants completed 100% of survey questions. Survey respondents were predominantly White females aged 41–50 years with an MD, DO, or MBBS. The overall COVID-19 vaccination rate of respondents was 94.6%. The vaccination rate was highest among the 4 NDs and 7 PAs at 100%, followed by 78 MDs, DOs, and MBBSs at 96.2%, and 12 NPs at 75%. Of NP respondents, 67% practiced rurally; 25.6% of MDs, DOs, and MBBSs practiced rurally; and 25% of NDs and 28.6% of PAs practiced rurally. In total, 22% of NPs did not feel comfortable recommending the COVID-19 vaccine to patients, compared to 1% of MDs, DOs, and MBBSs and 0% of NDs or PAs. All provider types had high rates of disagreement with the statement that the COVID-19 pandemic had increased their trust in vaccine safety: 44% of NPs; 29% of PAs; 25% of NDs; and 7% of MDs, DOs, and MBBSs. Among 19 rural providers, 19% indicated mistrust in public health to ensure that vaccines are safe versus 3% in suburban areas and 0% in urban areas. Conclusions: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is prevalent among healthcare providers and may be higher in NPs and those practicing rurally. Unfortunately, the response rate of NPs was low. Future research should focus on these providers to better understand their knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes about COVID-19 vaccines. These results can also inform future targeted vaccine education to healthcare providers during public health crises.
Background: Healthcare facilities have experienced many challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, including limited personal protective equipment (PPE) supplies. Healthcare personnel (HCP) rely on PPE, vaccines, and other infection control measures to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections. We describe PPE concerns reported by HCP who had close contact with COVID-19 patients in the workplace and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Method: The CDC collaborated with Emerging Infections Program (EIP) sites in 10 states to conduct surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 infections in HCP. EIP staff interviewed HCP with positive SARS-CoV-2 viral tests (ie, cases) to collect data on demographics, healthcare roles, exposures, PPE use, and concerns about their PPE use during COVID-19 patient care in the 14 days before the HCP’s SARS-CoV-2 positive test. PPE concerns were qualitatively coded as being related to supply (eg, low quality, shortages); use (eg, extended use, reuse, lack of fit test); or facility policy (eg, lack of guidance). We calculated and compared the percentages of cases reporting each concern type during the initial phase of the pandemic (April–May 2020), during the first US peak of daily COVID-19 cases (June–August 2020), and during the second US peak (September 2020–January 2021). We compared percentages using mid-P or Fisher exact tests (α = 0.05). Results: Among 1,998 HCP cases occurring during April 2020–January 2021 who had close contact with COVID-19 patients, 613 (30.7%) reported ≥1 PPE concern (Table 1). The percentage of cases reporting supply or use concerns was higher during the first peak period than the second peak period (supply concerns: 12.5% vs 7.5%; use concerns: 25.5% vs 18.2%; p Conclusions: Although lower percentages of HCP cases overall reported PPE concerns after the first US peak, our results highlight the importance of developing capacity to produce and distribute PPE during times of increased demand. The difference we observed among selected groups of cases may indicate that PPE access and use were more challenging for some, such as nonphysicians and nursing home HCP. These findings underscore the need to ensure that PPE is accessible and used correctly by HCP for whom use is recommended.
Healthcare personnel with severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection were interviewed to describe activities and practices in and outside the workplace. Among 2,625 healthcare personnel, workplace-related factors that may increase infection risk were more common among nursing-home personnel than hospital personnel, whereas selected factors outside the workplace were more common among hospital personnel.
To develop a pediatric research agenda focused on pediatric healthcare-associated infections and antimicrobial stewardship topics that will yield the highest impact on child health.
The study included 26 geographically diverse adult and pediatric infectious diseases clinicians with expertise in healthcare-associated infection prevention and/or antimicrobial stewardship (topic identification and ranking of priorities), as well as members of the Division of Healthcare Quality and Promotion at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (topic identification).
Using a modified Delphi approach, expert recommendations were generated through an iterative process for identifying pediatric research priorities in healthcare associated infection prevention and antimicrobial stewardship. The multistep, 7-month process included a literature review, interactive teleconferences, web-based surveys, and 2 in-person meetings.
A final list of 12 high-priority research topics were generated in the 2 domains. High-priority healthcare-associated infection topics included judicious testing for Clostridioides difficile infection, chlorhexidine (CHG) bathing, measuring and preventing hospital-onset bloodstream infection rates, surgical site infection prevention, surveillance and prevention of multidrug resistant gram-negative rod infections. Antimicrobial stewardship topics included β-lactam allergy de-labeling, judicious use of perioperative antibiotics, intravenous to oral conversion of antimicrobial therapy, developing a patient-level “harm index” for antibiotic exposure, and benchmarking and or peer comparison of antibiotic use for common inpatient conditions.
We identified 6 healthcare-associated infection topics and 6 antimicrobial stewardship topics as potentially high-impact targets for pediatric research.