To understand how healthcare facilities employ contact precautions for patients with multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) in the post–coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) era and explore changes since 2014.

Cross-sectional survey.

Emerging Infections Network (EIN) physicians involved in infection prevention or hospital epidemiology.

In September 2022, we sent via email an 8-question survey on contact precautions and adjunctive measures to reduce MDRO transmission in inpatient facilities. We also asked about changes since the COVID-19 pandemic. We used descriptive statistics to summarize data and compared results to a similar survey administered in 2014.

Of 708 EIN members, 283 (40%) responded to the survey and 201 reported working in infection prevention. A majority of facilities (66% and 69%) routinely use contact precautions for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) respectively, compared to 93% and 92% in 2014. Nearly all (>90%) use contact precautions for Candida auris, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE), and carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii. More variability was reported for carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and extended-spectrum β-lactamase–producing gram-negative organisms. Compared to 2014, fewer hospitals perform active surveillance for MRSA and VRE. Overall, 90% of facilities used chlorhexidine gluconate bathing in all or select inpatients, and 53% used ultraviolet light or hydrogen peroxide vapor disinfection at discharge. Many respondents (44%) reported changes to contact precautions since COVID-19 that remain in place.

Heterogeneity exists in the use of transmission-based precautions and adjunctive infection prevention measures aimed at reducing MDRO transmission. This variation reflects a need for updated and specific guidance, as well as further research on the use of contact precautions in healthcare facilities.

Although a growing number of healthcare facilities are implementing healthcare personnel (HCP) coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination requirements, vaccine exemption request management as a part of such programs is not well described.

Cross-sectional survey.

Infectious disease (ID) physician members of the Emerging Infections Network with infection prevention or hospital epidemiology responsibilities.

Eligible persons were sent a web-based survey focused on hospital plans and practices around exemption allowances from HCP COVID-19 vaccine requirements.

Of the 695 ID physicians surveyed, 263 (38%) responded. Overall, 160 respondent institutions (92%) allowed medical exemptions, whereas 132 (76%) allowed religious exemptions. In contrast, only 14% (n = 24) allowed deeply held personal belief exemptions. The types of medical exemptions allowed varied considerably across facilities, with allergic reactions to the vaccine or its components accepted by 145 facilities (84%). For selected scenarios commonly used as the basis for religious and deeply held personal belief exemption requests, 144 institutions (83%) would not approve exemptions focused on concerns regarding right of consent or violations of freedom of personal choice, and 140 institutions (81%) would not approve exemptions focused on introducing foreign substances into one’s body or the sanctity of the body. Most respondents noted plans for additional infection prevention interventions for HCP who received an exemption for COVID-19 vaccination.

Although many respondent institutions allowed exemptions from HCP COVID-19 vaccination requirements, the types of exemptions allowed and how the exemption programs were structured varied widely.

Presenteeism, or working while ill, by healthcare personnel (HCP) experiencing influenza-like illness (ILI) puts patients and coworkers at risk. However, hospital policies and practices may not consistently facilitate HCP staying home when ill.

We conducted a mixed-methods survey in March 2018 of Emerging Infections Network infectious diseases physicians, describing institutional experiences with and policies for HCP working with ILI.

Of 715 physicians, 367 (51%) responded. Of 367, 135 (37%) were unaware of institutional policies. Of the remaining 232 respondents, 206 (89%) reported institutional policies regarding work restrictions for HCP with influenza or ILI, but only 145 (63%) said these were communicated at least annually. More than half of respondents (124, 53%) reported that adherence to work restrictions was not monitored or enforced. Work restrictions were most often not perceived to be enforced for physicians-in-training and attending physicians. Nearly all (223, 96%) reported that their facility tracked laboratory-confirmed influenza (LCI) in patients; 85 (37%) reported tracking ILI. For employees, 109 (47%) reported tracking of LCI and 53 (23%) reported tracking ILI. For independent physicians, not employed by the facility, 30 (13%) reported tracking LCI and 11 (5%) ILI.

More than one-third of respondents were unaware of whether their institutions had policies to prevent HCP with ILI from working; among those with knowledge of institutional policies, dissemination, monitoring, and enforcement of these policies was highly variable. Improving communication about work-restriction policies, as well as monitoring and enforcement, may help prevent the spread of infections from HCP to patients.

To characterize healthcare provider diagnostic testing practices for identifying Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile infection (CDI) and asymptomatic carriage in children.

Electronic survey.

An 11-question survey was sent by e-mail or facsimile to all pediatric infectious diseases (PID) members of the Infectious Diseases Society of America’s Emerging Infections Network (EIN).

Among 345 eligible respondents who had ever responded to an EIN survey, 196 (57%) responded; 162 of these (83%) were aware of their institutional policies for CDI testing and management. Also, 159 (98%) respondents knew their institution’s C. difficile testing method: 99 (62%) utilize NAAT without toxin testing and 60 (38%) utilize toxin testing, either as a single test or a multistep algorithm. Of 153 respondents, 10 (7%) reported that formed stools were tested for C. difficile at their institution, and 76 of 151 (50%) reported that their institution does not restrict C. difficile testing in infants and young children. The frequency of symptom- and age-based testing restrictions did not vary between institutions utilizing NAAT alone compared to those utilizing toxin testing for C. difficile diagnosis. Of 143 respondents, 26 (16%) permit testing of neonatal intensive care unit patients and 12 of 26 (46%) treat CDI with antibiotics in this patient population.

These data suggest that there are opportunities to improve CDI diagnostic stewardship practices in children, including among hospitals using NAATs alone for CDI diagnosis in children.

To delineate the timing of, indications for, and assessment of visitor restriction policies and practices (VRPP) in pediatric facilities.

An electronic survey to characterize VRPP in pediatric healthcare facilities.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America Emerging Infections Network surveyed 334 pediatric infectious disease consultants via an electronic link. Descriptive analyses were performed.

A total of 170 eligible respondents completed a survey between 12 July and August 15, 2016, for a 51% response rate. Of the 104 respondents (61%) familiar with their VRPP, 92 (88%) had VRPP in all inpatient units. The respondents reported age-based VRPP (74%) symptom-based VRPP (97%), and outbreak-specific VRPP (75%). Symptom-based VRPP were reported to be seasonal by 24% of respondents and to be implemented year-round according to 70% of respondents. According to the respondents, communication of VRPP to families occurred at admission (87%) and through signage in care areas (64%), while communication of VRPP to staff occurred by email (77%), by meetings (55%), and by signage in staff-only areas (49%). Respondents reported that enforcement of VRPP was the responsibility of nursing (80%), registration clerks (58%), unit clerks (53%), the infection prevention team (31%), or clinicians 16 (16%). They also reported that the effectiveness of VRPP was assessed through active surveillance of hospital acquired respiratory infections (62%), through active surveillance of healthcare worker exposures (28%) and through patient/family satisfaction assessments (29%).

Visitor restriction policies and practices vary in scope, implementation, enforcement, and physician awareness in pediatric facilities. A prospective multisite evaluation of outcomes would facilitate the adoption of uniform guidance.

Studies have suggested that contact precautions (CP) for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin-resistant enterococcus may have risks that outweigh the benefits. These risks, coupled with more widespread use of horizontal interventions such as daily bathing with chlorhexidine gluconate, have brought into question the value of routine CP for these organisms.

To assess the state of utilization of CP as well as adjunctive measures to reduce the risk of transmission in US hospitals.

Cross-sectional survey.

Total of 751 physician members of the Emerging Infections Network.

An 8-question electronic survey distributed by email.

A total of 426/751 (57%) responded to the survey; 337/364 (93%) of respondents use routine CP for methicillin-resistant S. aureus and 335/364 (92%) use routine CP for vancomycin-resistant enterococcus. The most widely used trigger for initiation of CP for both pathogens was positive clinical culture. Practices for discontinuation of isolation varied widely. We found that 325/354 (92%) perform routine chlorhexidine gluconate bathing and 236/353 (67%) perform S. aureus decolonization with mupirocin for 1 or more subsets of inpatients, and 82/356 (23%) reported using either hydrogen peroxide vapor or ultraviolet-C room disinfection at discharge. Free text responses noted frustration and variation in the application, practice, and process for initiation and discontinuation of CP.

Use of CP for methicillin-resistant S. aureus and vancomycin-resistant enterococcus remains commonplace, although horizontal interventions such as chlorhexidine gluconate bathing are increasingly used. The heterogeneity of practices and policies was striking. Evidence-based guidelines regarding CP and horizontal interventions are needed.

Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2015;37(1):36–40

To identify current outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy practice patterns and complications.

We administered an 11-question survey to adult infectious disease physicians participating in the Emerging Infections Network (EIN), a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–sponsored sentinel event surveillance network in North America. The survey was distributed electronically or via facsimile in November and December 2012. Respondent demographic characteristics were obtained from EIN enrollment data.

Overall, 555 (44.6%) of EIN members responded to the survey, with 450 (81%) indicating that they treated 1 or more patients with outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) during an average month. Infectious diseases consultation was reported to be required for a patient to be discharged with OPAT by 99 respondents (22%). Inpatient (282 [63%] of 449) and outpatient (232 [52%] of 449) infectious diseases physicians were frequently identified as being responsible for monitoring laboratory results. Only 26% (118 of 448) had dedicated OPAT teams at their clinical site. Few infectious diseases physicians have systems to track errors, adverse events, or “near misses” associated with OPAT (97 [22%] of 449). OPAT-associated complications were perceived to be rare. Among respondents, 80% reported line occlusion or clotting as the most common complication (occurring in 6% of patients or more), followed by nephrotoxicity and rash (each reported by 61%). Weekly laboratory monitoring of patients who received vancomycin was reported by 77% of respondents (343 of 445), whereas 19% of respondents (84 of 445) reported twice weekly laboratory monitoring for these patients.

Although use of OPAT is common, there is significant variation in practice patterns. More uniform OPAT practices may enhance patient safety.

The diagnosis of central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) is often controversial, and existing guidelines differ in important ways.

To determine both the range of practices involved in obtaining blood culture samples and how central line-associated infections are diagnosed and to obtain members' opinions regarding the process of designating bloodstream infections as publicly reportable CLABSIs.

Electronic and paper 11-question survey of infectious-diseases physician members of the Infectious Diseases Society of America Emerging Infections Network (IDSA EIN).

All 1,364 IDSA EIN members were invited to participate.

692 (51%) members responded; 52% of respondents with adult practices reported that more than half of the blood culture samples for intensive care unit (ICU) patients with central lines were drawn through existing lines. A sizable majority of respondents used time to positivity, differential time to positivity when paired blood cultures are used, and quantitative culture of catheter tips when diagnosing CLABSI or determining the source of that bacteremia. When determining whether a bacteremia met the reportable CLABSI definition, a majority used a decision method that involved clinical judgment.

Our survey documents a strong preference for drawing 1 set of blood culture samples from a peripheral line and 1 from the central line when evaluating fever in an ICU patient, as recommended by IDSA guidelines and in contrast to current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations. Our data show substantial variability when infectious-diseases physicians were asked to determine whether bloodstream infections were primary bacteremias, and therefore subject to public reporting by National Healthcare Safety Network guidelines, or secondary bacteremias, which are not reportable.