Alejandra B. Salinas

Objective: To identify system-level barriers to effective environmental cleaning and disinfection in long-term care (LTC) facilities. Design: Transdisciplinary, mixed-methods approach using human factors engineering and environmental sampling to assess environmental cleaning practices and associated multi-drug resistant organism (MDRO) burden in LTC patient rooms and common areas. Setting: Two high-acuity skilled nursing facilities in Maryland. Methods: Environmental sampling of high-touch surfaces (HTSs) was performed in resident rooms, communal areas, and nursing stations. Samples were analyzed for MDROs and overall bacterial burden. System-level barriers were assessed through observations of cleaning and focus groups with environmental services (EVS) staff and supervisors, guided by the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) model. Results: Of 123 composite samples of environmental surfaces, 76% of patient room samples were culture positive for 1+ MDRO, with MRSA the most prevalent organism. Quantitative bacterial burden was higher from Composite 1 (the area in the room closest to the resident) than any other composite in the resident room (median of 27.17 CFU/mL/cm ² vs 4.55 (near door) and 1.22 (bathroom)). Observations indicated significant deviations from cleaning protocols, with only 43% of HTSs cleaned per facility policy. Focus group discussions highlighted systemic challenges, including inconsistent training, frequent interruptions, and poor communication among staff. Conclusions: The findings underscore the burden of MDRO contamination in LTC settings and critical barriers to effective environmental cleaning. Addressing these issues through standardized training with feedback mechanisms, enhanced communication, and leadership engagement is essential for improving infection prevention efforts and resident safety in LTC facilities.

Objective: To understand healthcare workers’ (HCWs) beliefs and practices toward blood culture (BCx) use.Design: Cross-sectional electronic survey and semi-structured interviews.Setting: Academic hospitals in the United States.Participants: HCWs involved in BCx ordering and collection in adult intensive care units (ICU) and wards.Methods: We administered an anonymous electronic survey to HCWs and conducted semi-structured interviews with unit staff and quality improvement (QI) leaders in these institutions to understand their perspectives regarding BCx stewardship between February and November 2023.Results: Of 314 HCWs who responded to the survey, most (67.4%) were physicians and were involved in BCx ordering (82.3%). Most survey respondents reported that clinicians had a low threshold to culture patients for fever (84.4%) and agreed they could safely reduce the number of BCx obtained in their units (65%). However, only half of them believed BCx was overused. Although most made BCx decisions as a team (74.1%), a minority reported these team discussions occurred daily (42.4%). A third of respondents reported not usually collecting the correct volume per BCx bottle, half were unaware of the improved sensitivity of 2 BCx sets, and most were unsure of the nationally recommended BCx contamination threshold (87.5%). Knowledge regarding the utility of BCx for common infections was limited.Conclusions: HCWs’ understanding of best collection practices and yield of BCx was limited.

Over a 2-year period, we identified Transmission from Room Environment Events (TREE) across the Johns Hopkins Health System, where the subsequent room occupant developed the same organism with the same antimicrobial susceptibilities as the patient who had previously occupied that room. Overall, the TREE rate was 50/100,000 inpatient days.

Background: There are no systematic measures of central line–associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) in patients maintaining central venous catheters (CVCs) outside acute care hospitals. To clarify the burden of CLABSIs in these patients, we characterized patients with CLABSI present on hospital admission (POA). Methods: Retrospective cross-sectional analysis of patients with CLABSI-POA in 3 health systems covering 11 hospitals across Maryland, Washington DC, and Missouri from November 2020 to October 2021. CLABSI-POA was defined using an adaptation of the acute care CLABSI definition. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and outcomes were collected via record review. Cox proportional hazard analysis was used to assess factors associated with the all-cause mortality rate within 30 days. Results: A total of 461 patients were identified as having CLABSI-POA. CVCs were most commonly maintained in home infusion therapy (32.8%) or oncology clinics (31.2%). Enterobacterales were the most common etiologic agent (29.2%). Recurrent CLABSIs occurred in a quarter of patients (25%). Eleven percent of patients died during the hospital admission. Among patients with CLABSI-POA, mortality risk increased with age (hazard ratio vs age <20 years by age group: 20–44 years, 11.2 [95% confidence interval, 1.46–86.22]; 45–64 years, 20.88 [2.84–153.58]; ≥65 years, 22.50 [2.98–169.93]) and lack of insurance (2.46 [1.08–5.59]), and it decreased with CVC removal (0.57 [.39–.84]). Conclusions: CLABSI-POA is associated with significant in-hospital mortality risk. Surveillance is required to understand the burden of CLABSI in the community to identify targets for CLABSI prevention initiatives outside acute care settings.

Objective: To (1) understand the role of antibiotic-associated adverse events (ABX-AEs) on antibiotic decision-making, (2) understand clinician preferences for ABX-AE feedback, and (3) identify ABX-AEs of greatest clinical concern. Design: Focus groups. Setting: Academic medical center. Participants: Medical and surgical house staff, attending physicians, and advanced practice practitioners. Methods: Focus groups were conducted from May 2022 to December 2022. Participants discussed the role of ABX-AEs in antibiotic decision-making and feedback preferences and evaluated the prespecified categorization of ABX-AEs based on degree of clinical concern. Thematic analysis was conducted using inductive coding. Results: Four focus groups were conducted (n = 15). Six themes were identified. (1) ABX-AE risks during initial prescribing influence the antibiotic prescribed rather than the decision of whether to prescribe. (2) The occurrence of an ABX-AE leads to reassessment of the clinical indication for antibiotic therapy. (3) The impact of an ABX-AE on other management decisions is as important as the direct harm of the ABX-AE. (4) ABX-AEs may be overlooked because of limited feedback regarding the occurrence of ABX-AEs. (5) Clinicians are receptive to feedback regarding ABX-AEs but are concerned about it being punitive. (6) Feedback must be curated to prevent clinicians from being overwhelmed with data. Clinicians generally agreed with the prespecified categorizations of ABX-AEs by degree of clinical concern. Conclusions: The themes identified and assessment of ABX-AEs of greatest clinical concern may inform antibiotic stewardship initiatives that incorporate reporting of ABX-AEs as a strategy to reduce unnecessary antibiotic use.

Background: Feedback regarding antibiotic-associated adverse events (ABX-AEs) may assist clinicians with antibiotic decision making. We sought to understand how clinicians account for ABX-AEs when prescribing and their preferences for ABX-AE feedback. Methods: We conducted 1-hour virtual focus groups with 3–5 physicians or advance practice practitioners (APPs) per session at Johns Hopkins Hospital. Participants discussed the role of ABX-AEs in antibiotic decision making and feedback preferences. Participants evaluated prespecified categorization (mildly, moderately, or very concerning) of several ABX-AEs. Focus groups were recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were coded inductively by 2 independent reviewers; discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Codes were used to conduct thematic analysis. Results: Overall, 3 focus groups were conducted with 12 participants: 41.6% were house staff, 16.7% were attending physicians, and 41.6% were APPs. Most were female (91.6%) and were white (41.7%) or Asian (41.7%). Clinicians generally agreed with the prespecified categorizations of ABX-AEs based on degree of clinical concern (Table). We identified 5 themes: (1) The risk of ABX-AE is considered during initial prescribing but influences agent selection more than the decision to prescribe antibiotics. (2) The occurrence of an ABX-AE leads to assessment of need for continued antibiotic therapy. (3) The impact of an ABX-AE on other management decisions is as important as the direct harm of the ABX-AE when assessing severity. (4) Feedback must be curated to prevent clinicians from being overwhelmed with data. (5) Clinicians will be more receptive to feedback regarding ABX-AEs if feedback is contextualized (Fig.). Conclusions: The themes identified and assessment of ABX-AEs of greatest clinical concern may help inform the development of effective ABX-AE feedback methods to improve antibiotic safety. Disclosures: None

Objective: Central-line–associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) surveillance in home infusion therapy is necessary to track efforts to reduce infections, but a standardized, validated, and feasible definition is lacking. We tested the validity of a home-infusion CLABSI surveillance definition and the feasibility and acceptability of its implementation.Design: Mixed-methods study including validation of CLABSI cases and semistructured interviews with staff applying these approaches.Setting: This study was conducted in 5 large home-infusion agencies in a CLABSI prevention collaborative across 14 states and the District of Columbia.Participants: Staff performing home-infusion CLABSI surveillance.Methods: From May 2021 to May 2022, agencies implemented a home-infusion CLABSI surveillance definition, using 3 approaches to secondary bloodstream infections (BSIs): National Healthcare Safety Program (NHSN) criteria, modified NHSN criteria (only applying the 4 most common NHSN-defined secondary BSIs), and all home-infusion–onset bacteremia (HiOB). Data on all positive blood cultures were sent to an infection preventionist for validation. Surveillance staff underwent semistructured interviews focused on their perceptions of the definition 1 and 3–4 months after implementation.Results: Interrater reliability scores overall ranged from κ = 0.65 for the modified NHSN criteria to κ = 0.68 for the NHSN criteria to κ = 0.72 for the HiOB criteria. For the NHSN criteria, the agency-determined rate was 0.21 per 1,000 central-line (CL) days, and the validator-determined rate was 0.20 per 1,000 CL days. Overall, implementing a standardized definition was thought to be a positive change that would be generalizable and feasible though time-consuming and labor intensive.Conclusions: The home-infusion CLABSI surveillance definition was valid and feasible to implement.

The elderly are understudied despite their high risk of tuberculosis (TB). We sought to identify factors underlying the lack of an association between TB and type 2 diabetes (T2D) in the elderly, but not adults. We conducted a case–control study in elderly (≥65 years old; ELD) vs. younger adults (young/middle-aged adults (18–44/45–64 years old; YA|MAA) stratified by TB and T2D, using a research study population (n = 1160) and TB surveillance data (n = 8783). In the research study population the adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of TB in T2D was highest in young adults (AOR 6.48) but waned with age becoming non-significant in the elderly. Findings were validated using TB surveillance data. T2D in the elderly (vs. T2D in younger individuals) was characterized by better glucose control (e.g., lower hyperglycemia or HbA1c), lower insulin resistance, more sulphonylureas use, and features of less inflammation (e.g., lower obesity, neutrophils, platelets, anti-inflammatory use). We posit that differences underlying glucose dysregulation and inflammation in elderly vs. younger adults with T2D, contribute to their differential association with TB. Studies in the elderly provide valuable insights into TB-T2D pathogenesis, e.g., here we identified insulin resistance as a novel candidate mechanism by which T2D may increase active TB risk.