Background: Prescribing errors related to the COVID-19 oral antiviral agent nirmatrelvir-ritonavir have been reported and are primarily due to improper renal dosing and significant drug–drug interactions. These patient safety issues are particularly concerning in the long-term care facility (LTCF) population. The Nebraska Antimicrobial Stewardship Assessment and Promotion Program (ASAP) is a unique collaborative partnership involving the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Nebraska Medicine, and the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). ASAP is funded through the Nebraska DHHS healthcare-associated infections and antimicrobial resistance (HAI/AR) program and was established in 2016, with a primary focus of promoting safe and effective antimicrobial use in Nebraska. In 2022, ASAP developed a statewide pharmacist-led service to assist LTCFs in evaluating prescriptions for COVID-19 oral therapeutics. We studied the impact of ASAP pharmacist intervention on COVID-19 oral antiviral prescriptions. Methods: ASAP created a centralized LTCF treatment request process for oral antivirals. A REDCap survey hosted on a dedicated program webpage was used to collect requests for treatment submitted by any LTCF in Nebraska, including assisted living facilities. An ASAP pharmacist reviewed each survey submission for renal and hepatic function, drug–drug interactions, date of symptom onset, and ability to take oral medications. After pharmacist approval, delivery of the appropriate COVID-19 therapeutic to the LTCF was coordinated with the dispensing pharmacy. The pharmacists recorded the specific interventions for each treatment in the program database. Descriptive analyses were used to study the program impact. Results: In total, 630 courses of oral COVID-19 antivirals were administered to Nebraska LTCF residents through the ASAP program in 2022. The median patient age was 84 years, and 59% were female. Most dispensed courses (n = 410, 65%) needed pharmaceutical interventions upon review for 506 individual interventions. The most frequent intervention was to hold or adjust doses of concomitant medications in 205 patients (33%), followed by antiviral dose adjustment for renal function in 117 patients (19%), and selecting an alternative COVID-19 therapy due to drug–drug interactions in 108 patients (17%). COVID-19 therapeutic agents were changed upon ASAP intervention to be in compliance with the National Institute of Health COVID-19 treatment guidelines in 37 patients (6%). Conclusions: Pharmacist review of oral antiviral prescriptions for COVID-19 through a public health–supported initiative identified and prevented potential patient safety issues in LTCF residents. Future studies should analyze the impact of similar interventions on patient outcomes.

Disclosures: None

Background: The use of personal protective equipment (PPE) is a critical intervention in preventing the spread of transmission-based infections in healthcare settings. However, contamination of the skin and clothing of healthcare personnel (HCP) frequently occurs during the doffing of PPE. In fact, nearly 40% of HCP make errors while doffing their PPE, causing them to contaminate themselves. PPE monitors are staff that help to promote their colleagues’ safety by guiding them through the PPE donning and doffing processes. With the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020, the UNC Medical Center chose to incorporate PPE monitors as part of its comprehensive COVID-19 prevention strategy, using them in inpatient areas (including COVID-19 containment units and all other units with known or suspected SARS-CoV-2–positive patients), procedural areas, and outpatient clinics. Methods: Infection prevention and nursing developed a PPE monitoring team using redeployed staff from outpatient clinics and inpatient areas temporarily closed because of the pandemic. Employee training took place online and included fundamentals of disease transmission, hand hygiene basics, COVID-19 policies and signage, and videos on proper donning and doffing, including coaching tips. The monitors’ first shifts were supervised by experienced monitors to continue in-place training. Employees had competency sheets signed off by a supervisor. Results: The Medical Center’s nursing house supervisors took over management and deployment of the PPE monitoring team, and infection prevention staff continued to train new members. Eventually, as closed clinics and areas reopened and these PPE monitors returned to their regular positions, areas used their own staff to perform the role of PPE monitor. In the fall of 2020, a facility-wide survey was sent to all inpatient staff to assess their perceptions of the Medical Center’s efforts to protect them from acquiring COVID-19. It included a question asking how much staff agreed or disagreed that PPE monitors “play an important role in keeping our staff who care for COVID-19 patients safe.” Of the 626 staff who answered this question, 67.6% agreed or strongly agreed that PPE monitors played an important role in keeping staff safe. Thus far, there has been no direct transmission or clusters of COVID-19 involving HCP in COVID-19 containment units with PPE monitors. Conclusions: PPE monitors are an important part of a comprehensive COVID-19 prevention strategy. In early 2021, the UNC Medical Center posted and hired paid PPE monitor positions to continue this critical work in a sustainable way.

Funding: No

Disclosures: None

Background: We evaluated the impact of a comprehensive SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) infection prevention (IP) bundle on rates of non–COVID-19 healthcare-acquired respiratory viral infection (HA-RVI). Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected respiratory viral data using an infection prevention database from April 2017 to January 2021. We defined HA-RVI as identification of a respiratory virus via nasal or nasopharyngeal swabs collected on or after hospital day 7 for COVID-19 and non–COVID-19 RVI. We compared incident rate ratios (IRRs) of HA-RVI for each of the 3 years (April 2017 to March 2020) prior to and 10 months (April 2020 to January 2021) following full implementation of a comprehensive COVID-19 IP bundle at Duke University Health System. The COVID-19 IP bundle consists of the following elements: universal masking; eye protection; employee, patient, and visitor symptom screening; contact tracing; admission and preprocedure testing; visitor restrictions; discouraging presenteeism; population density control and/or physical distancing; and ongoing attention to basic horizontal IP strategies including hand hygiene, PPE compliance, and environmental cleaning. Results: During the study period, we identified 715 HA-RVIs over 1,899,700 inpatient days, for an overall incidence rate of 0.38 HA-RVI per 1,000 inpatient days. The HA-RVI IRR was significantly higher during each of the 3 years prior to implementing the COVID-19 IP bundle (Table 1). The incidence rate of HA-RVI decreased by 60% after bundle implementation. COVID-19 became the dominant HA-RVI, and no cases of HA-influenza occurred in the postimplementation period (Figure 1). Conclusions: Implementation of a comprehensive COVID-19 IP bundle likely contributed to a reduction in HA-RVI for hospitalized patients in our healthcare system. Augmenting traditional IP interventions in place during the annual respiratory virus season may be a future strategy to reduce rates of HA-RVI for inpatients.

Table 1.

Figure 1.

Among 37 internal-medicine resident physicians assigned to our outpatient clinic at Minneapolis Veterans’ Affairs Health Care System (MVAHCS) on July 1, 2017, we designed a pre- and postintervention observational study. Our results show that in-person academic detailing around outpatient antimicrobial selection was associated with a decrease in outpatient antimicrobial prescriptions in a group of high-prescribing resident physicians.

We conducted a retrospective review of a hybrid antimicrobial restriction process demonstrating adherence to appropriate use criteria in 72% of provisional-only orders, in 100% of provisional orders followed by ID orders, and in 97% of ID-initiated orders. Therapy interruptions occurred in 24% of provisional orders followed by ID orders.

Background: In the last 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic, Singapore has been forced to explore alternative sites to quarantine persons or manage infected cases during surge periods in a national effort not to overwhelm the public healthcare facilities. External quarantine facilities were created at the EXPO and further extended to D’Resort and other hotels in May 2020. Infection prevention (IP) practices were implemented at these external facilities, where training non–healthcare staff to quickly learn and understand these required practices has been challenging. A team of staff from different clinical disciplines was formed to manage the COVID-19 patients at these facilities. The Infection Prevention and Epidemiology (IPE) department was invited to train all staff, including the clinical team, management agency, and security staff, regarding IP measures. We have described the system and approach used in the rapid training of all staff in IP measures where the goal is zero transmission while providing care to COVID-19 patients. Methods: Training materials were developed to facilitate rapid learning by all staff; medical jargon was avoided. Curriculum included precautions to be taken while performing terminal cleaning of patient rooms, serving meals, disinfecting phones and thermometers, as well as donning and doffing personal protective equipment (PPE). “Green” and “red” zones were created to assist staff in remembering appropriate PPE to be used. PPE training was provided using slides and video. Posters were created as a guide for staff at donning and doffing stations. Additionally, the IPE training team utilized an online data collection tool to capture staff completion on IP training and PPE competency for record keeping. We used a ‘soft’ approach because staff members were fearful of the unknown when caring for COVID-19 patients. Daily audits were conducted with immediate concurrent feedback to engage the relevant stakeholders. Infection prevention liaison officers (IPLOs) were appointed to assist in the daily audits. An electronic audit tool was used to facilitate audit and quick analysis. Conclusions: The experience gained in the last 2 years has been useful and may provide a template if new external sites are needed in the future because of the potential surge associated with the ο (omicron) variant.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

The escalating threat of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) necessitates impactful, reproducible, and scalable antimicrobial stewardship strategies. This review addresses the critical need to enhance the quality of antimicrobial stewardship intervention research. We propose five considerations for authors planning and evaluating antimicrobial stewardship initiatives. Antimicrobial stewards should consider the following mnemonic ABCDE: (A) plan Ahead using implementation science; (B) Be clear and thoroughly describe the intervention by using the TidIER checklist; (C) Use a Checklist to comprehensively report study components; (D) Select a study Design carefully; and (E) Assess Effectiveness and implementation by selecting meaningful outcomes. Incorporating these recommendations will help strengthen the evidence base of antimicrobial stewardship literature and support optimal implementation of strategies to mitigate AMR.

Advancement in solid organ transplantation and hematopoietic stem cell transplant continues to improve the health outcomes of patients and widens the number of eligible patients who can benefit from the medical progress. Preserving the effectiveness of antimicrobials remains crucial, as otherwise transplant surgeries would be unsafe due to surgical site infections, and the risk of sepsis with neutropenia would preclude stem cell transplant. In this review, we provide updates on three previously discussed stewardship challenges: febrile neutropenia, Clostridioides difficile infection, and asymptomatic bacteriuria. We also offer insight into four new stewardship challenges: the applicability of the “shorter is better” paradigm shift to antimicrobial duration; antibiotic allergy delabeling and desensitization; colonization with multidrug-resistant gram-negative organisms; and management of cytomegalovirus infections. Specifically, data are accumulating for “shorter is better” and antibiotic allergy delabeling in transplant patients, following successes in the general population. Unique to transplant patients are the impact of multidrug-resistant organism colonization on clinical decision-making of antibiotic prophylaxis in transplant procedure and the need for antiviral stewardship in cytomegalovirus. We highlighted the expansion of antimicrobial stewardship interventions as potential solutions for these challenges, as well as gaps in knowledge and opportunities for further research.

Background:Pseudomonas aeruginosa uncommonly causes illness in neonatal intensive care units (NICU). A cluster of 4 infections was appreciated over 6 weeks in our inborn–delivery NICU, prompting an investigation. Methods: Upon recognition of a cluster of infections, we retrospectively audited all cultures positive for P. aeruginosa from all sites (sterile and nonsterile) over the prior year in the index NICU (NICU 1, inborn) and for comparison in the adjacent NICU (NICU 2, larger, outborn–surgical). We performed multilocus sequence testing (MLST) of available clinical isolates to identify clonality. We initiated quarterly prospective surveillance of P. aeruginosa colonization of infants through nares, perirectal swabs, and tracheal aspirates of intubated infants or oropharyngeal swabs of nonintubated infants. We also swabbed incubators, ventilatory equipment, and sinks for selective P. aeruginosa culturing. Results: We identified 7 invasive P. aeruginosa infections in the inborn NICU (5 bloodstream and 2 pneumonia) over an 11-month period (Figure 1). Over the same period, there were no P. aeruginosa bloodstream infections in the adjacent NICU. Affected neonates were high risk: gestational age ranged from 22 weeks and 4 days to 26 weeks and 3 days; day of life at infection ranged from 6 to 37; 6 infants were on a jet ventilator; and all infants were receiving enteral nutrition (6 of 7 with donor human milk and 7 of 7 with expressed mother’s milk). Two infants died from their infection, and 5 infants survived to hospital discharge. All 7 isolates were pansusceptible to routine antimicrobials. MLST of the first 4 available isolates demonstrated 4 different sequence types; however, the first 2 were from the same clonal complex, indicating relatedness (Figure 1). For environmental samples, 8 obtained 8 cultures (swabs) of incubators and ventilatory equipment, and 24 cultures of faucets and drains of all sinks. Only sink cultures were positive, yielding 3 isolates identified as P. aeruginosa and 4 isolates identified as P. aeruginosa–like. Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) is underway to identify relatedness to the clinical isolates. We initiated quarterly infant surveillance by swab culture for P. aeruginosa nasal colonization then escalated to perirectal and oropharyngeal swab or tracheal aspirate cultures (intubated infants) in subsequent quarters. We did not detect any infants colonized with P. aeruginosa. Conclusions: We identified a cluster of P. aeruginosa in high-risk neonates with no point source. Molecular typing indicated a multiclonal cluster. This finding poses a management dilemma. A colonized water system is suspected and WGS of environmental samples is underway.

Funding: No

Disclosures: None

Figure 1.

Background: Burkholderia multivorans are gram-negative bacteria typically found in water and soil. B. multivorans outbreaks among patients without cystic fibrosis have been associated with exposure to contaminated medical devices or nonsterile aqueous products. Acquisition can also occur from exposure to environmental reservoirs like sinks or other hospital water sources. We describe an outbreak of B. multivorans among hospitalized patients without cystic fibrosis at 2 hospitals within the same healthcare system in California (hospitals A and B) between August 2021 and July 2022. Methods: We defined confirmed case patients as patients without cystic fibrosis hospitalized at hospital A or hospital B between January 2020 to July 2022 with B. multivorans isolated from any body site matching the outbreak strain. We reviewed medical records to describe case patients and to identify common exposures. We evaluated infection control practices and interviewed staff to detect exposures to nonsterile water. Select samples from water, ice, drains, and sink splash zone surfaces were collected and cultured for B. multivorans in March 2022 and July 2022 from both hospitals. Common aqueous products used among case patients were tested for B. multivorans. Genetic relatedness between clinical and environmental samples was determined using random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) and repetitive extragenic palindromic polymerase chain reaction (Rep-PCR). Results: We identified 23 confirmed case patients; 20 (87%) of these were identified at an intensive care unit (ICU) in hospital A. B. multivorans was isolated from respiratory sources in 18 cases (78%). We observed medication preparation items, gloves, and patient care items stored within sink splash zones in ICU medication preparation rooms and patient rooms. Nonsterile water and ice were used for bed baths, swallow evaluations, and ice packs. B. multivorans was cultured from ice and water dispensed from an 11-year-old ice machine in the ICU at hospital A in March 2022 but no other water sources. Additional testing in July 2022 yielded B. multivorans from ice and a drain pan from a new ice machine in the same ICU location at hospital A. All products were negative. Clinical and environmental isolates were the same strain by RAPD and Rep-PCR. Conclusions: The use of nonsterile water and ice from a contaminated ice machine contributed to this outbreak. Water-related fixtures can serve as reservoirs for Burkholderia, posing infection risk to hospitalized and immunocompromised patients. During outbreaks of water-related organisms, such as B. multivorans , nonsterile water and ice use should be investigated as potential sources of transmission and other options should be considered, especially for critically ill patients.

Disclosures: None

Background: Admission laboratory screening for asymptomatic COVID-19 has been utilized to mitigate healthcare-associated SARS-CoV-2 transmission. A better understanding of the impact of such testing across a variety of patient populations is needed. Methods: Beginning April 2020, every patient admitted within an academic healthcare system underwent SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing upon admission. Between April 20, 2020 through June 14, 2021, results were analyzed in asymptomatic patients across 4 inpatient facilities: a tertiary-care adult hospital, a free-standing pediatric hospital, a community-based hospital, and a behavioral health hospital. Positivity rates and the number needed to test (NNT) to identify 1 asymptomatic infected patient were calculated overall, by hospital type, by patient vaccination status, and by CDC-defined levels of community transmission. Weekly community incidence rates of COVID-19 for the system’s metropolitan service area (8 central Tennessee counties) were obtained from Tennessee Department of Health records. Weekly COVID-19 incidence rates per 100,000 people were calculated using US Census Bureau data. Using a national survey of hospital epidemiologists, a clinically meaningful NNT was identified (ie, 1 positive patient per 100 patients tested). A crude admission testing cost (covering testing supplies, reagents, and lab personnel costs) was obtained from operational data ($50 per test) to assess testing utility. Results: In total, 51,187 tests were collected during the study period with a positivity rate of 1.8%. No periods of low transmission were observed (Table 1). During high transmission periods, the NNT met the clinically relevant threshold in all populations. In addition, the NNT approached or met the 1:100 threshold for most locations during periods of less transmission, suggesting continued benefit even as infection rates decline. In all transmission periods, the NNT for non–fully vaccinated patients met the clinically meaningful threshold, in contrast to testing of fully vaccinated patients (Table 2). Discussion: Implementing an asymptomatic patient admission testing program can provide clinically relevant value based on the NNT, even during lower periods of transmission and in different patient populations. Limiting admission testing to non–fully vaccinated patients during periods of lower transmission may be a strategy to address cost and resource concerns around this practice. Further investigations into the impact of booster vaccination and newer SARS-CoV-2 variants on admission testing programs are also necessary. Although the impact of such testing on healthcare-associated COVID-19 among patients and healthcare workers could not be clearly determined, these data provide important information as facilities weigh the costs and benefits of such testing.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

Background: Antibiotic use during end-of-life (EOL) care is an increasingly important target for antimicrobial stewardship given the high prevalence of antibiotic use in this setting with limited evidence on safety and effectiveness to guide antibiotic decision making. We estimated antibiotic use during the last 6 months of life for patients under hospice or palliative care, and we identified potential targets (ie time points) during the EOL period when antimicrobial stewardship interventions could be targeted for maximal benefit. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of nationwide Veterans’ Affairs (VA) patients, 18 years and older who died between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2019, and who had been hospitalized within 6 months prior to death. Data from the VA’s integrated electronic medical record (EMR) were collected including demographics, comorbid conditions, and duration of inpatient antibiotics administered, along with outpatient antibiotics dispensed. A propensity-score matched-cohort analysis was conducted to compare antibiotic use between patients placed into palliative care or hospice matched to patients not receiving palliative care or hospice care. Repeated measures ANOVA and repeated measures linear regression methods were used to analyze difference in difference (D-I-D) of days of therapy (DOT) between the 2 cohorts. Results: There were 251,822 patients in the cohort, including 23,746 in hospice care, 89,768 in palliative care, and 138,308 without palliative or hospice care. The median days from last discharge to death was 9 days. The most common comorbidities were chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (50%), malignancy (46%), and diabetes mellitus (43%). Overall, 18,296 (77%) of 23,746 hospice patients, and 71,812 (80%) of 89,768 palliative care patients received at least 1 antibiotic, whereas 95,167 (69%) of 138,308 who were not placed in hospice or did not receive palliative care received antibiotics. In the primary matched cohort analysis that compared patients placed into hospice or palliative care to propensity-score matched controls, entry into palliative care was associated with a 11% absolute increase in antibiotic prescribing, and entry into hospice was associated with a 4% absolute increase during the 7–14 days after entry versus the 7–14 days before entry (Fig. 1). The stratified cohorts had very similar balanced covariates as the overall cohort. Conclusions: In our large cohort study, we observed that patients receiving EOL care had high levels of antibiotic exposure across VA population, particularly on entry to hospice or during admissions when they received palliative care consultation. Future studies are needed to identify the optimal EOL strategies for collaboration between antimicrobial stewardship and palliative care.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

Background: In Ghana, treatment of surgical site infections (SSIs) is often empirical and not based on targeted therapy (ie, knowledge of the organisms infecting surgical sites or their susceptibility profiles). This empirical approach most often leads to inappropriate prescription, which is a major driver of antimicrobial resistance. Using phenotypic and molecular tools, we investigated S. aureus, E. coli, K. pneumoniae, and P. aeruginosa recovered from patients with SSIs. Methods: Identification of bacteria species recovered from wound swabs and aspirates was performed using matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectroscopy (MALDI-TOF MS). Antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) was done using the Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion method. Results were interpreted according to the CLSI 2018 guidelines. Extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL) positivity was detected among the gram-negative isolates using the double disk-diffusion method and PCR amplification of ESBL genes (blaSHV, blaTEM, and blaCTX-M). Staphylococcus aureus isolates resistant to cefoxitin were further tested for the presence of mecA using PCR. Results: In total, 312 patients were enrolled in this prospective study. The 243 bacteria species identified comprised Escherichia coli (34%; 107 of 312), Klebsiella pneumoniae (20%; 62 of 312), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (16%; 49 of 312), and S. aureus (8%; 25 of 312). S. aureus isolates were susceptible to clindamycin, erythromycin, gentamicin, linezolid, rifampicin, and norfloxacin, but 10 S. aureus isolates were resistant to cefoxitin and were positive for the mecA gene (MRSA). Among the 169 isolates in the Enterobactericae category (E. coli and K. pneumoniae), 143 (85%) were resistant to tetracycline; 141 (83%) were resistant to trimethoprim–sulfamethoxazole; 118 (70%) were resistant to cefotaxime; 111 (66%) were resistant to cefuroxime; 98 (58%) were resistant to ciprofloxacin; 86 (51%) were resistant to gentamicin; and 81 (48%) were resistant to chloramphenicol. However, 161 (95%) were sensitive to amikacin and 159 (94%) were sensitive to meropenem. Among the 49 P. aeruginosa isolates, 45 (92%) showed sensitivity to amikacin, 43 (88%) showed sensitivity to meropenem, 35 (71%) showed sensitivity to gentamicin, and 35 (71%) showed sensitivity to ciprofloxacin. ESBL was detected in 59 (55%) of 107 E. coli isolates, and 48 (77%) of 62 K. pneumoniae isolates. blaCTX-M was the dominant ESBL gene in E. coli isolates (34 of 59, 58%). For K. pneumoniae isolates, blaCTX-M genes were detected in 45 (94%) of 48 isolates and blaSHV genes were detected in 44 (92%) of 48 isolates. Among the 49 P. aeruginosa isolates, 3 harbored the blaTEM gene. Conclusions: The findings of high proportions of ESBL-producing bacteria species in Ghana is a grave public health concern. Data generated in this study will inform treatment decisions and policies and appropriate antibiogram development and will support antimicrobial stewardship programs at the respective healthcare facilities in Ghana.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

Background: Nursing home (NH) residents and staff were at high risk for COVID-19 early in the pandemic; several studies estimated seroprevalence of infection in NH staff to be 3-fold higher among CNAs and nurses compared to other staff. Risk mitigation added in Fall 2020 included systematic testing of residents and staff (and furlough if positive) to reduce transmission risk. We estimated risks for SARS-CoV-2 infection among NH staff during the first winter surge before widespread vaccination. Methods: Between February and May 2021, voluntary serologic testing was performed on NH staff who were seronegative for SARS-CoV-2 in late Fall 2020 (during a previous serology study at 14 Georgia NHs). An exposure assessment at the second time point covered prior 3 months of job activities, community exposures, and self-reported COVID-19 vaccination, including very recent vaccination (≤4 weeks). Risk factors for seroconversion were estimated by job type using multivariable logistic regression, accounting for interval community-incidence and interval change in resident infections per bed. Results: Among 203 eligible staff, 72 (35.5%) had evidence of interval seroconversion (Fig. 1). Among 80 unvaccinated staff, interval infection was significantly higher among CNAs and nurses (aOR, 4.9; 95% CI, 1.4–20.7) than other staff, after adjusting for race and interval community incidence and facility infections. This risk persisted but was attenuated when utilizing the full study cohort including those with very recent vaccination (aOR, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.9–3.7). Conclusions: Midway through the first year of the pandemic, NH staff with close or common resident contact continued to be at increased risk for infection despite enhanced infection prevention efforts. Mitigation strategies, prior to vaccination, did not eliminate occupational risk for infection. Vaccine utilization is critical to eliminate occupational risk among frontline healthcare providers.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None