Objectives: Factors affecting COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy among primary-care healthcare workers (HCWs) remain poorly understood. We sought to identify factors associated with vaccine acceptance and hesitancy among HCWs. Methods: A multicenter online cross-sectional survey was performed across 6 primary-care clinics from May to June 2021, after completion of the vaccination rollout. The following data were collected: demographics, profession, years working in healthcare, residential status, presence of chronic medical conditions, self-perceived risk of acquiring COVID-19, and previous influenza vaccination. HCWs who accepted the vaccine were asked to rank their 5 best reasons for vaccine acceptance. HCWs who were vaccine hesitant completed the 5C scale on psychological antecedents of vaccination. Results: Of 1,182 eligible HCWs, 557 responded (response rate, 47.1%) and 29 were excluded due to contraindications. Among 557 respondents, the vaccine acceptance rate was 94.9% (n = 501) and 5.1% were hesitant (n = 27). COVID-19 vaccine acceptance was not associated with sex, age, ethnicity, profession, number of years in healthcare, living status, presence of chronic diseases, self-perceived risk, or previous influenza vaccination. The 3 most common reasons for COVID-19 vaccine acceptance as ranked by 501 HCWs were (1) to protect their family and friends, (2) protect themselves from COVID-19, and (3) the high risk of acquiring COVID-19 because of their jobs. The 15-item questionnaire from the 5C psychological antecedents of vaccination was completed by 27 vaccine hesitant HCWs. The mean scores for the components of the 5Cs were ‘confidence’ (3.96), ‘complacency’ (3.23), ‘constraint’ (2.85), ‘calculation’ (5.79) and ‘collective responsibility’ (4.12). Conclusions: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is a minute issue among primary-care HCWs in Singapore, where the acceptance rate is 95% with a 5% hesitancy rate. Future studies can focus on other settings with higher hesitancy rates and acceptance of booster vaccinations with the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 δ (delta) variant. Trial Registration: This study was approved by the National Healthcare Group (NHG) Domain Specific Review Board (DSRB), Singapore on April 26, 2021 (Reg No. 2021/00213).

Background: Recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and healthcare-related costs. Although data are minimal, agents including oral vancomycin have been used as secondary prophylaxis to prevent recurrent CDI. Methods: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of vancomycin at preventing CDI from October 2019 to September 2022. Eligible patients had a history of at least 1 episode of CDI and were receiving systemic antibiotics for another condition. Participants were randomized 1:1 to oral vancomycin 125 mg by mouth twice daily and were interviewed at 1, 2, and 3 months thereafter to assess recurrence. We enrolled 26 patients: 15 completed the 1-month interview, 12 completed the 2-month interview, and 11 completed the full study. Those 15 participants who did not complete the 3-month interview were considered dropouts. The final sample for this study included those 11 participants who completed all interviews. Demographics and outcomes are shown in Table 1. Results: One case of recurrent CDI was reported at the 1-month interview and a second was reported at 3 months; both cases had received the placebo. The study was terminated early due to low enrollment. Conclusions: Although our results did not reach statistical significance and this study was limited in small sample size, our findings suggest that secondary prophylaxis with oral vancomycin may be beneficial in patients who are actively receiving antibiotics, which is consistent with prior retrospective studies. Future studies with larger sample sizes are still needed to examine this important question of whether secondary prophylaxis is useful for preventing recurrent CDI.

Disclosure: None

Objectives: The highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 has swept across the globe, causing large swaths of COVID-19, displacing medical resources and attention from patients with other life-threatening illnesses, and overwhelming healthcare institutions. Shifting toward endemicity, the Singapore Ministry of Health ceased issuing quarantine orders to close contacts of infected cases on October 11, 2021. However, contact tracing and exposure management within SGH continued with the same risk criteria. We have examined COVID-19 exposures in different hospital locations to determine the effectiveness of surveillance in breaking the chain of transmission. Methods: Contact tracing of COVID-19 exposures among Singapore General Hospital (SGH) staff and patients has been conducted since the first COVID-19 diagnosis in January 2020. The information collected is used to identify those at higher risk of infection for enhanced surveillance or isolation. The data analyzed in this study were collected during later periods of the SARS-CoV-2 δ (delta) pandemic wave between August 1, 2021, and December 31, 2021. Results: During the 4-month study period, there were 1,686 SARS-CoV-2 exposures in SGH. Among these 1,686 exposures, 1,157 (69%) were contacts with an infected patient. Among these infected source patients, 915 were emergency department patients, 210 were ward inpatients, and 32 were clinic outpatients. The remaining 524 exposure events (31%) were contacts with infected staff, of whom 441 were SGH employees and 83 were employees from other SingHealth institutions. The remaining 5 index cases were visitors to SGH. Of the 1,686 exposure events, 330 had associated at-risk contacts requiring exposure management. Among 330 patient index cases, 213 (64.5%) resulted in 699 exposed contacts (patients vs staff), whereas 117 staff index cases resulted in 435 exposed contacts (patients vs staff). For 434 exposed contacts who were staff, 204 (47%) of their exposures occurred in inpatient ward settings, followed by 153 (35.3%) that occurred in outpatient clinics, 36 (8%) that occurred common lounging areas, 16 (3.6%) that occurred in office sites, 15 (3.4%) that occurred in the community, 8 (1.8%) that occurred in occupation therapy, and 2 (0.5%) that occurred in the emergency department. For 688 exposed contacts who were patients, 579 (84.1%) exposures occurred in inpatient wards, 70 (10.2%) occurred in DEM, 19 (2.7%) occurred in other SingHealth institutions, 16 (2.3%) were exposures to roving porters, and 3 (0.4%) occurred in the community. During the study period, 3 hospital clusters were identified and investigated, one of which included secondary cases. Conclusions: Most SARS-CoV-2 exposures in SGH occurred in inpatient settings where patients were index cases. Despite intensive contact tracing and stringent surveillance and isolation measures, inpatient clusters could not be prevented.

Background: Patients requiring mechanical circulatory support (MCS) during episodes of cardiogenic shock are at risk for hospital-acquired bloodstream infection (HABSI). Clinically MCS devices include extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) devices, durable and temporary left ventricular-assist devices (VADs), and intra-aortic balloon pumps (IABPs). However, the MCS exclusion to the NHSN central-line–associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) surveillance rules in 2018 did not include IABP as a qualifying device. We have described utilization and incidence of primary HABSI (pHABSI) in our patients requiring MCS. Methods: The setting for this study was 9 cardiothoracic and heart failure intensive care units with 131 total beds at the Cleveland Clinic Main Campus. Surveillance for HABSI to include determination of CLABSI was performed prospectively. MCS-associated pHABSI were patients who had ECMO, LVAD, or IABP present for >2 calendar days with device in place on the date of infection or removed the day before. A patient with 2 device types at time of infection was counted as a pHABSI for both groups. Patient, device, and MCS days were extracted from an electronic database. Non-MCS patient days were calculated as the difference between total patient days and total MCS days. The incidence of ECMO-, VAD-, and IABP-associated pHABSI were compared to each other and to non–MCS-associated pHABSI using OpenEpi version 3.01 software. Results: Surveillance results are shown in Table 1. During the observation period, there were 221 pHABSIs and 139,013 patient days. Moreover, 67 pHABSIs were associated with an MCS device over 17,044 total MCS days: 43 ECMO days, 18 VAD days, and 13 IABP days. Also, 9 patients had >1 type of eligible device and 7 (39%) of the IABP-associated pHABSIs were CLABSIs.

The cumulative incidences of pHABSI associated with ECMO, VAD, and IABP were 5.68, 4.59, and 2.34 per 1,000 MCS days, respectively. The incidence of IABP pHABSI was not significantly different from VAD pHABSI (P = .06), but it was different from ECMO pHABSI (P < .01). The pHABSI rate for non-MCS days was 1.26 per 1,000 patient days. Conclusions: In our patients requiring MCS, the risk of pHABSI associated with IABP was significantly greater than in patients without MCS and was similar to patients with VAD. MCS of all types should be considered a risk for HABSI in patients with cardiogenic shock beyond the presence of a central line. Protocols to further prevent HABSI morbidity in IABP patients are needed.

Disclosure: None

Objectives: COVID-19 booster uptake has remained poor among healthcare workers (HCWs) despite evidence of improved immunity against the SARS-COV-2 δ (delta) and ο (omicron) variants. Although most studies have used a questionnaire to assess hesitancy, we aimed to identify factors affecting booster hesitancy by examining actual vaccine uptake across time. Methods: COVID-19 vaccination database records were extracted for HCWs working at 7 Singaporean public primary-care clinics between January and December 2021. Data included sex, profession, place of practice, vaccination type, and dates. Time to booster was calculated from the date of vaccination minus the date of eligibility. The χ2 test was used to compare the relationship between first dose and booster hesitancy. The Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test were used to evaluate differences in cumulative booster uptake. Multivariate Cox regression was used to investigate predictors of timely booster vaccination. The vaccination rate was charted across time and was corroborated with media releases pertaining to legislative changes. Results: Of 891 primary-care HCWs, 877 (98.9%) were fully vaccinated and 73.8% of eligible HCWs had taken the booster. HCWs were less booster hesitant (median, 16 days; range, 5–31.3) compared to the first dose (median, 39 days; range, 13–119.3). First-dose–hesitant HCWs were more likely to be booster hesitant (OR, 3.66; 95% CI, 2.61–5.14). Adjusting for sex, workplace, and time to first dose, ancillary HCWs (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.03–2.28), medical HCWs (HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.18–2.74), and nursing HCWs (HR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.18–2.37) received boosters earlier than administrative staff. No temporal relationship was observed for booster uptake, legislative changes, or COVID-19 case numbers. Conclusions: Vaccine hesitancy among HCWs had improved from first dose to booster, with timely booster vaccination among medical and nursing staff. Tailored education, risk messaging, and strategic legislation might help reduce delayed booster vaccination. This study was approved by the National Healthcare Group (NHG) Domain Specific Review Board (DSRB), Singapore on December 28, 2021 (Reg No. 2021/01120).

Background: Healthcare personnel (HCP) working in non–acute-care facilities are at high risk of COVID-19. We sought to determine SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence, and analyzed behaviors and activities related to COVID-19 acquisition in this cohort. Methods: Between May and June 2021, HCP were enrolled at a skilled nursing facility and a memory care facility in St. Louis, Missouri. Data regarding demographics, prior SARS-CoV-2 testing, symptoms consistent with COVID-19 in the previous 6 months, COVID-19 vaccination, personal protective equipment (PPE) use, and COVID-19 exposures were collected via survey. Blood specimens were obtained to determine SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid IgG antibody seroprevalence (Abbott Laboratories). Study protocol was approved by the Washington University Institutional Review Board. Results: The survey was completed by 74 HCP. 82% of participants were female, and 31% reported >10 years of healthcare experience. The overall SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity rate was 8.9% (5 HCP). Of the surveyed HCP, 50% reported symptoms concerning for COVID-19 in the prior 6 months. Headache (38%), fatigue (35%) and fever (27%) were the most common self-reported symptoms. Among symptomatic HCP, only 35% sought medical care for these symptoms. All HCP reported having taken at least 1 COVID-19 test prior to study enrollment. Of note, 18.9% (14 HCP) had a self-reported prior positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test, of whom 9 HCP were seronegative. All seronegative HCP with a self-reported history of COVID-19 reported infection >3 months before study participation. Completion of a primary COVID-19 vaccination series was reported by 86% of HCP. Known exposure to COVID-19 at work was reported by 28% of HCP. When asked about PPE at the time of workplace exposure, N95 mask use was reported by 81%, gloves by 57%, gowns by 33%, face shields by 29% and surgical masks by 14%. Known specific exposure to COVID-19 outside work was reported by 31% of HCP. Conclusions: One year after the initial COVID-19 pandemic impacted the St. Louis region, HCP at non–acute-care facilities had a SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence of 8.9%. Similar frequency of exposures were reported from both the workplace and community, with high rates of PPE use at the workplace. HCP in such settings remain at high risk of COVID-19 exposure from workplace and community exposures. Ongoing efforts are needed to maintain PPE use to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission within non–acute-care facilities, and continue access to timely COVID-19 screening for HCP.

Disclosure: None

Objectives: Sputnik-V (Gam-COVID-Vac) is a recombinant adenoviral (rAdv) vector-based, COVID-19 vaccine now used in >70 countries. Mucosal immunity is thought to be important for protection against COVID-19. We did a prospective cohort study to assess Sputnik-V–elicited mucosal SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses. Methods: We divided 82 COVID-19–free participants into prior COVID-19 and no prior COVID-19 groups and followed them at day 21 after Sputnik-V dose 1′ (rAd5) and dose 2′ (rAd26). Nasopharyngeal swabs and blood were collected to perform SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic and immunologic assays. SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific IgG and IgA ELISAs were performed on both nasal swabs and blood. SARS-CoV-2 real-time RT-PCR testing was performed to exclude infectious influencing. Results: Nasal S-IgG levels increased 25-fold after dose 1′ (P < .001) and remained high after dose 2 in all participants. Prior COVID-19 exposure was associated with both elevated baseline mucosal IgG and IgA and higher postvaccination IgG, but not IgA, boost. Nasal IgA levels increased 16.5-fold after dose 1′ (P < .001) and remained high after dose 2’ in all participants. Compared to dose 1′, Sputnik-V dose 2′ did not further increase either mucosal IgG levels (P = .626) or IgA levels (P = .609). Conclusions: A single dose of Sputnik-V boosted mucosal SARS-CoV-2 immunity. The effects of Sputnik-V dose 2′ on mucosal immunity were minimal. These findings indicate (1) that intramuscularly administered adenoviral vaccines enhance SARS-CoV-2 immunity via both systemic and mucosal routes and (2) that cost-effectiveness and the efficacy of Sputnik-V vaccination could be improved by adjusting the current prime-booster regimen and extending the 21-day interval between the doses. Trial registration: Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (no. NCT04871841).

Objectives: In August 2021, the Ministry of Health, Singapore revised the uniform policy in public hospitals to allow female Muslim staff, including nurses, to wear the tudung as an add-on to their uniforms. Institutions were advised that incorporation of the tudung should still align with current infection prevention guidelines. On May 2, 2021, in response to evolving evidence of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, our institution adopted the use of N95 masks for all HCWs in clinical settings. Prior to this revision in uniform policy, most female Muslim staff were mask fitted without tudungs. No existing international guidance recommends whether mask refitting of should be conducted with tudungs. As such, we looked at the N95 mask concordance for these staff undergoing mask fitting. Methods: Between November 1, 2021, and January 14, 2022, we mask fit-tested all new staff and refitted existing staff both with and without the tudung. We conducted qualitative fit-testing using their personal tudung, and we tested 2 models of N95 mask: 3MTM 1870+ and AIR+. When an HCW only passed the fitting of 1 or none of the models, additional N95 mask fit-testing was conducted with other available mask models according to our department’s existing workflow. Results: In total, 334 staff underwent N95 mask fitting. Overall, 326 (97.6%) passed with the same N95 mask models both with and without the tudung. The remaining 8 staff (2.4%) had passed 2 N95 mask models without the tudung but required a different N95 mask model while wearing the tudung. No staff required quantitative fit testing. Conclusions: N95 mask concordance for female Muslim staff undergoing fit-testing both with and without the tudung was high at 97.6%. Further evaluation of the 8 staff who did not show concordance could be retested using a quantitative fit-testing method.

Background: Many hospitals have implemented admission SARS-CoV-2 testing to evaluate for the need for transmission-based precautions. However, a positive test in an asymptomatic patient may represent (1) active infection, signifying infectiousness; (2) false positivity; or (3) past infection with prolonged viral shedding. We used a strand-specific SARS-CoV-2 reverse real-time polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) assay to assess infectivity among asymptomatic patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR admission test. Methods: We used a 2-step rRT-PCR specific to the minus strand of the SARS-CoV-2 envelope gene. We reviewed records of patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR who were also tested for the strand-specific SARS-CoV-2 PCR within 2 days of admission at Stanford Health Care during July 2020–April 2022. We restricted our analysis to each patient’s first test. We calculated the percentage of detectable minus strand-specific tests among asymptomatic patients over time and gathered descriptive statistics for age, sex, and immunocompromised state. Results: In total, 848 admitted patients had strand-specific SARS-CoV-2 assays performed. Of 532 patients with a strand-specific assay done within 2 days of admission, 242 (45%) were asymptomatic. Among asymptomatic patients, the mean age was 56 years (range, 19–99), 133 (55%) were male, 50 (21%) had immunocompromising conditions, and 30 (12%) were admitted for a surgical procedure. In total, 21 (9%; range, 4%–25% per quarter) had detectable minus strand-specific assays (Fig. 1). Conclusions: Most asymptomatic patients tested for SARS-CoV-2 on admission were not infectious. Hospitals using SARS-CoV-2 PCR admission testing may need to re-evaluate the continued use of this practice.

Fig. 1. Minus strand-specific SARS-CoV-2 assay percentage positivity per quarter among asymptomatic patients tested within 2 days of admission. The peak positivity in November 2021–January 2022 quarter coincided with the SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant surge in our county.

Disclosure: None

The epidemiology of community-onset Staphylococcus aureus infections is evolving. We performed a multihospital, retrospective study of pediatric community-onset S. aureus susceptibilities between 2015 and 2020. Oxacillin and clindamycin susceptibility remained lower at 67% and 75%, respectively. Tetracycline and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole susceptibility remained high at >90%. Oxacillin susceptibility was highest in invasive infections.

Objectives: Data comparing the immunogenicity of Sputnik-V and Sinopharm vaccines in seropositive and seronegative groups are lacking. We compared the immunogenicity of Sputnik-V (Gam-COVID-Vac) and Sinopharm (BBIBP-CorV) vaccines in seronegative and seropositive groups. Methods: In total, 60 adults participated the study. The immune response after vaccination was assessed using enzyme immunoassay. IgG levels were measured in all participants at 3 time points: before vaccination, 42 days after the first vaccine dose, and 6 months after the first vaccine dose. The results of the SARS-CoV-2 antibody test were quantified according to the WHO First International Standard and expressed in international units (BAU per mL). Results: The study participants were divided into 2 groups: 30 people (50%) were vaccinated with Sputnik-V (Gam-COVID-Vac) and 30 people (50%) were vaccinated with Sinopharm (BBIBP-CorV). The groups had no difference in sex composition. The highest antibody levels were observed 42 days after vaccination in both the seronegative group (P = .006) and the seropositive group (P < .001). At 6 months after vaccination, the IgG value declined much farther among the seronegative group (P = .003) compared to those who had recovered from COVID-19 before vaccination. However, the “hybrid immunity” generated by the Sputnik-V vaccine had greater strength and duration (P < .001). Conclusions: This study showed that IgG levels in vaccinated individuals who previously recovered from SARS-CoV-2 infection (“hybrid immunity”) were higher than in SARS-CoV-2–naïve individuals. In a comparative part of the study, the Sputnik-V vaccine had greater strength and duration of immune response across the 6-month observation period (P < .001).

Objective: To characterize hospital-onset COVID-19 cases and to investigate the associations between these rates and population and hospital-level rates including trends in healthcare worker infections (HCW), community cases, and COVID-19 wastewater data. Design: Retrospective cohort study from January 1, 2021, to November 23, 2022. Setting: This study was conducted at a 589-bed urban Midwestern tertiary-care hospital system. Participants and interventions: The infection prevention team reviewed the electronic medical records (EMR) of patients who were admitted for >48 hours and subsequently tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 to determine whether COVID-19 was likely to be hospital-onset illness. Each case was further categorized as definite, probable, or possible based on viral sequencing, caregiver tracing analysis, symptoms, and cycle threshold values. Patients were excluded if there was a known exposure prior to admission. Clinical data including vaccination status were collected from the EMR. HCW case data were collected via our institution’s employee health services. Community cases and wastewater data were collected via the Wisconsin Department of Health Services database. Additionally, we evaluated the timing of changes in infection prevention guidance such as visitor restrictions. Results: In total, 156 patients met criteria for hospital-onset COVID-19. Overall, 6% of cases were categorized as definite, 24% were probable, and 70% were possible hospital-onset illness. Most patients were tested prior to a procedure (31%), for new symptoms (30%), and for discharge planning (30%). Also, 53% were symptomatic and 41% received treatment for their COVID-19. Overall, 38% of patients were immunocompromised and 27% were unvaccinated. Overall, 12% of patients died within 1 month of their positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and 11% required ICU admission during their hospital stay. Hospital-onset COVID-19 increased in fall of 2022. Specifically, October 2022 had 16 cases, whereas fall of 2021 (September–November) only had 3 cases total. Finally, similar peaks were observed in total cases by week between healthcare workers, county cases, and COVID-19 wastewater levels. These peaks correspond with the SARS-CoV-2 delta and omicron variant surges, respectively. Conclusions: Hospital-onset cases followed similar trends as population and hospital-level data throughout the study period. However, hospital-onset rate did not correlate as strongly in the second half of 2022 when cases were disproportionately high. Given that hospital-onset cases can result in significant morbidity, continued enhanced infection prevention efforts and low threshold for testing are warranted in the inpatient environment.

Disclosure: None

Objectives: Laboratory-acquired infection (LAI) of SARS-CoV is well known, but MERS-CoV or SARS-CoV-2 LAI has not yet been reported. Beginning last November, COVID-19 cases increased among laboratory staff at our 2,700-bed tertiary-care hospital. A 7-day home-quarantine policy for healthcare workers when household members were confirmed with SARS-COV-2 was lifted February 28. We investigated LAI and its risk factors. Methods: From March 21 to 25, all confirmed cases of COVID-19 among 176 laboratory staff were surveyed with questionnaire to collect the following data: symptom onset and period, SARS-CoV-2 PCR–positive sample date, age, sex, infection in household members, close contact with COVID-19 confirmed staff, work type, work unit, possibility of LAI and LAI risk factors. Results: In total, 54 laboratory staff (30.1%) were confirmed with SARS-CoV-2 infection; first 1 person on November 28 and 1 person on November 30, 2021, then 13 in February 2022 and 39 later in 2022. Overall, 22 cases had previously infected household members, and 9 cases suspected that they had had hospital contact with an infected patients through phlebotomy or bedside tests. In total, 25 cases of possible LAI mainly occurred in clusters of 3, 6, or 7 people through person-to-person transmission of a coworker who had an infected family member. The remaining 9 cases, including 1 sample receptionist, 2 urine analysis technicians, and 6 SARS-CoV-2 PCR test staff, may have been infected through an infected sample. However, person-to-person transmission was still possible because most shared a changing room and lounge in the same work unit. Conclusions: The most important cause of LAI is person-to-person transmission between coworkers; therefore, home quarantine is an effective measure to prevent LAI when a household member is infected wish SARS-CoV-2. Handling of infected specimens may be the second most common cause of LAI.

Background: Staphylococcus aureus infections are a significant cause of morbidity in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs), and they are typically preceded by nasal colonization. Mupirocin decolonization protocols as an infection prevention tool can halt S. aureus outbreaks and prevent infections. We examined the effect of a mupirocin treatment protocol on S. aureus incidence, prevalence, decolonization, and infections in a level IV NICU. Methods: We conducted a retrospective before-and-after observational study from June 1, 2018, to May 31, 2020. Beginning June 1, 2019, patients identified with either methicillin-sensitive or -resistant S. aureus (MSSA or MRSA) received mupirocin ointment to bilateral nares 3 times daily for 5 days. Patients with central lines or surgical incisions were treated every 30 days. All NICU patients were screened weekly unless positive for MRSA. We defined MSSA decolonization as 3 consecutive negative screens following mupirocin treatment. We calculated monthly S. aureus incidence as any new positive per 1,000 patient days and monthly prevalence as a percentage of the average daily number of patients with S. aureus per the average monthly census. Total number of infections were compared. Statistical significance was determined using a 2 sample proportions test and P < .05. Decolonization was calculated as percentage of occurrences among treated patients. Results: Overall, 190 patients received mupirocin; 142 patients received 1 course and 48 received 2 or more courses. There was no difference in incidence of MSSA (P = .09), but prevalence decreased from 18.8% to 14.4% (P < .05) (Fig. 1). Of 66 patients with MSSA, 35% were decolonized. An additional mupirocin treatment for 16 of these patients had a 50% decolonization rate. For MRSA, incidence decreased from 0.24 to 0.20 (P = .36) and prevalence decreased from 21.9% to 18.6% (P < .05) (Fig. 1). There was no statistical difference in the number of total S. aureus infections (P = .91) or when stratified by MSSA (P = .72) or MRSA (P = .82). In the postmupirocin population, there were 5 MRSA and 7 MSSA infections. Of the MSSA-infected patients, 6 remained colonized at the time of infection. Conclusions: Implementing a single mupirocin treatment course for S. aureus decolonization in NICU was only effective in one-third of patients and had no effect on infection occurrence. Changes in incidence and prevalence could be confounded by other infection prevention practices. Further study is needed to determine whether continued screening and additional mupirocin treatment could improve effectiveness of S. aureus decolonization programs.

Disclosure: None

Background: Blood cultures are commonly ordered for patients with low risk of bacteremia. Liberal blood-culture ordering increases the risk of false-positive results, which can lead to increased length of stay, excess antibiotics, and unnecessary diagnostic procedures. We implemented a blood-culture indication algorithm with data feedback and assessed the impact on ordering volume and percent positivity. Methods: We performed a prospective cohort study from February 2022 to November 2022 using historical controls from February 2020 to January 2022. We introduced the blood-culture algorithm (Fig. 1) in 2 adult surgical intensive care units (ICUs). Clinicians reviewed charts of eligible patients with blood cultures weekly to determine whether the blood-culture algorithm was followed. They provided feedback to the unit medical directors weekly. We defined a blood-culture event as ≥1 blood culture within 24 hours. We excluded patients aged <18 years, absolute neutrophil count <500, and heart and lung transplant recipients at the time of blood-culture review. Results: In total, 7,315 blood-culture events in the preintervention group and 2,506 blood-culture events in the postintervention group met eligibility criteria. The average monthly blood-culture rate decreased from 190 blood cultures per 1,000 patient days to 142 blood cultures per 1,000 patient days (P < .01) after the algorithm was implemented. (Fig. 2) The average monthly blood-culture positivity increased from 11.7% to 14.2% (P = .13). Average monthly days of antibiotic therapy (DOT) was lower in the postintervention period than in the preintervention period (2,200 vs 1,940; P < .01). (Fig. 3) The ICU length of stay did not change before the intervention compared to after the intervention: 10 days (IQR, 5–18) versus 10 days (IQR, 5–17; P = .63). The in-hospital mortality rate was lower during the postintervention period, but the difference was not statistically significant: 9.24% versus 8.34% (P = .17). The all-cause 30-day mortality was significantly lower during the intervention period: 11.9% versus 9.7% (P < .01). The unplanned 30-day readmission percentage was significantly lower during the intervention period (10.6% vs 7.6%; P < .01). Over the 9-month intervention, we reviewed 916 blood-culture events in 452 unique patients. Overall, 74.6% of blood cultures followed the algorithm. The most common reasons overall for ordering blood cultures were severe sepsis or septic shock (37%), isolated fever and/or leukocytosis (19%), and documenting clearance of bacteremia (15%) (Table 1). The most common indications for inappropriate blood cultures were isolated fever and/or leukocytosis (53%). Conclusions: We introduced a blood-culture algorithm with data feedback in 2 surgical ICUs and observed decreases in blood-culture volume without a negative impact on ICU LOS or mortality rate.

Disclosure: None