Background: Hand-hygiene technology (HHT) intends to monitor and promote hand washing by healthcare workers, a critical measure of infection control. Healthcare worker noncompliance with HHT is a major limitation to its implementation and utility in clinical settings. We assessed perspectives on HHT in an academic hospital system. Methods: Hand-hygiene team members created an anonymous, 37-question, Likert-scale survey to assess healthcare worker attitudes toward HHT. Surveys targeted nursing staff, advanced practice providers, care partners, and internal medicine physicians. Clinical coordinators from 5 distinct nursing units and 1 physician department emailed surveys to eligible employees. Research coordinators and clinical coordinators also posted a QR code for survey fliers at nursing stations. Results: Overall, 120 surveys were completed. Most surveys were completed by nurses and physicians (66.4% and 14.0%). Most respondents (67.5%) do not find HHT useful. Additionally, 78.3% of respondents believe that HHT does not accurately record hand-washing events. Most (78.3%) do not like using HHT, and 75.8% find it annoying. Only 10.8% believe that patient care suffers because of HHT. Conclusions: Most healthcare workers dislike the HHT badges, primarily due to perceived inaccuracies, lack of utility, burden of use, and pressure to comply. Distrust and effect on patient care do not appear to be substantial factors contributing to negative perceptions of HHT. Weaknesses of the study include overrepresentation of nursing staff and potential bias because respondents may have provided exceptionally negative responses believing it could lead to the removal of HHT.

Disclosures: None

A multisite research team proposed a survey to assess burnout among healthcare epidemiologists. Anonymous surveys were disseminated to eligible staff at SRN facilities. Half of the respondents were experiencing burnout. Staffing shortages were a key stressor. Allowing healthcare epidemiologists to provide guidance without directly enforcing policies may improve burnout.

Challenges for infection prevention and antimicrobial stewardship programs have arisen with the fourth wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, fueled by the delta variant. These challenges include breakthrough infections in vaccinated individuals, decisions to re-escalate infection prevention measures, critical medication shortages, and provider burnout. Various strategies are needed to meet these challenges.

The investigation of Islamic archaeology in Ethiopia has until recently been neglected. Excavations at Harlaa, a large urban centre in eastern Ethiopia, are now beginning to redress this lack of research attention. By establishing occupation and material sequences, and by assessing the chronology and material markers of Islamisation, recent work provides important new insight on the presence and role of Muslims and Islamic practice at Harlaa, and in the Horn of Africa more generally. The results challenge previous assumptions of cultural homogeneity, instead indicating the development of cosmopolitanism. They also suggest a possible historical identity for Harlaa: as Hubät/Hobat, the capital of the Hārlā sultanate.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in the acceleration of telehealth and remote environments as stakeholders and healthcare systems respond to the threat of this disease. How can infectious diseases and healthcare epidemiology expertise be adapted to support safe care for all?

Background: Central-line–associated blood stream infections (CLABSIs) are linked with significant morbidity and mortality. A NHSN laboratory-confirmed bloodstream infection (LCBSI) has specific criteria to ascribe an infection to the central line or not. The criteria used to associate the pathogen to another site are restrictive. This objective to better classify CLABSIs using enhanced criteria to gain a comprehensive understanding of the error so that appropriate reduction efforts are utilized. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of medical records with NHSN-identified CLABSI from July 2017 to December 2018 at 2 geographically proximate hospitals. Trained infectious diseases personnel from tertiary-care academic medical centers, the University of Virginia Health System, a 600-bed medical center in Charlottesville, Virginia, and Virginia Commonwealth University Health System with 865 beds in Richmond, Virginia, reviewed charts. We defined “overcaptured” or O-CLABSI into different categories: O-CLABSI-1 is bacteremia attributable to a primary infectious source; O-CLABSI-2 is bacteremia attributable to neutropenia with gastrointestinal translocation not meeting mucosal barrier injury criteria; O-CLABSI-3 is a positive blood culture attributable to a contaminant; and O-CLABSI-4 is a patient injecting line, though not officially documented. Descriptive analyses were performed using the χ2 and the Fisher exact tests. Results: We found a large number of O-CLABSIs on chart review (79 of 192, 41%). Overall, 56 of 192 (29%) LCBSIs were attributable to a primary infectious source not meeting NHSN definition. O-CLABSI proportions between the 2 hospitals were statistically different; hospital A identified 34 of 59 (58%) of their NHSN-identified CLABSIs as O-CLABSIs, and hospital B identified a 45 of 133 (34%) as O-CLABSIs (P = .0020) (Table 1). When comparing O-CLABSI types, hospital B had a higher percentage of O-CLABSI-1 compared to hospital B: 76% versus 64%. Hospital A had a higher proportion of O-CLABSI-2: 21 versus 7%. Hospitals A and B had similar proportion of O-CLABSI-3: 15% versus 18%. These values were all statistically significant (P < .0001). Discussions: The results of these 2 geographically proximate systems indicate that O-CLABSIs are common. Attribution can vary significantly between institutions, likely depending on differences in incidence of true CLABSI, patient populations, protocols, and protocol compliance. These findings have implications for interfacility comparisons of publicly reported data. Most importantly, erroneous attribution can result in missed opportunity to direct patient safety efforts to the root cause of the bacteremia and could lead to inappropriate treatment.

Funding: None

Disclosures: Michelle Doll, Research Grant from Molnlycke Healthcare