PTZ appears inferior to carbapenems for the treatment of ESBL bacteremia. For patients at high risk of invasive ESBL infections, early carbapenem therapy should be considered. Our findings should not be extended to β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations in development, as limited clinical data are available for these agents.

IMPORTANCE Risks for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among health care personnel (HCP) are unclear. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity among HCP with the a priori hypothesis that community exposure but not health care exposure was associated with seropositivity. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This cross-sectional study was conducted among volunteer HCP at 4 large health care systems in 3 US states. Sites shared deidentified data sets, including previously collected serology results, questionnaire results on community and workplace exposures at the time of serology, and 3-digit residential zip code prefix of HCP. Site-specific responses were mapped to a common metadata set. Residential weekly coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cumulative incidence was calculated from state-based COVID-19 case and census data. EXPOSURES Model variables included demographic (age, race, sex, ethnicity), community (known COVID-19 contact, COVID-19 cumulative incidence by 3-digit zip code prefix), and health care (workplace, job role, COVID-19 patient contact) factors. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES The main outcome was SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. Risk factors for seropositivity were estimated using a mixed-effects logistic regression model with a random intercept to account for clustering by site. RESULTS Among 24 749 HCP, most were younger than 50 years (17 233 [69.6%]), were women (19 361 [78.2%]), were White individuals (15 157 [61.2%]), and reported workplace contact with patients with COVID-19 (12 413 [50.2%]). Many HCP worked in the inpatient setting (8893 [35.9%]) and were nurses (7830 [31.6%]). Cumulative incidence of COVID-19 per 10 000 in the community up to 1 week prior to serology testing ranged from 8.2 to 275.6; 20 072 HCP (81.1%) reported no COVID-19 contact in the community. Seropositivity was 4.4% (95% CI, 4.1%-4.6%; 1080 HCP) overall. In multivariable analysis, community COVID-19 contact and community COVID-19 cumulative incidence were associated with seropositivity

We examined contamination of healthcare worker (HCW) gown and gloves after caring for patients with Klebsiella Producing Carbapenemase-producing and non-KPC-producing Klebsiella as a proxy for horizontal transmission. Contamination rate with Klebsiella is similar to MRSA and VRE, with 14% (31/220) of HCW-patient interactions resulting in contamination of gloves and gowns.

Background Central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) rate is an important quality measure, but suffers from subjectivity and inter-rater variability. Decreasing national CLABSI rates may compromise its power to discriminate between hospitals. This study evaluates hospital-onset bacteremia (HOB), (any positive blood culture obtained 48 hours post-admission), as a healthcare-associated infection related outcome measure by assessing association between HOB and CLABSI rates, and comparing the power of each to discriminate quality among ICUs. Methods In this multi-center study, ICUs provided monthly CLABSI and HOB rates for 2012 and 2013. A Poisson regression model was used to assess the association between the two rates. We compared the power of each measure to discriminate between ICUs using Standardized Infection Ratios (SIRs) with 95% CIs. A measure was defined as having greater power to discriminate if more of the SIRs (with surrounding CIs) were different from 1. Results 80 ICUs from 16 hospitals in the US and Canada reported a total of 663 CLABSIs, 475,420 central line days, 11,280 HOBs, and 966,757 patient-days. An absolute change in HOB of 1 per 1,000 patient-days was associated with a 2.5% change in CLABSI rate (P<0.001). Among the 80 ICUs, 20 (25%) had a CLABSI SIR and 60 (75%) a HOB SIR that was different from 1 (P<0.001). Conclusion Change in HOB rate is strongly associated with change in CLABSI rate and has greater power to discriminate between ICU performances. Consideration should be given to using HOB to replace CLABSI as an outcome measure in infection prevention quality.

Background: Sleep is associated with important adverse effects in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), such as disturbed sleep quality and gas exchange, including hypoxemia and hypercapnia. The effects of inhaled long-acting β₂-agonist therapy (LABA) on these disturbances are unclear. Objectives: The aim of the study was to assess the effect of inhaled salmeterol on nocturnal sleeping arterial oxygen saturation (SaO₂) and sleep quality. Methods: In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study of moderate/severe stable COPD patients, we compared the effects of 4 weeks of treatment with salmeterol 50 µg b.d. and matching placebo on sleeping SaO₂ and sleep quality. Overnight polysomnography (PSG) was performed at baseline, and after 4 and 8 weeks in addition to detailed pulmonary function testing. Of 15 patients included, 12 completed the trial (median age 69 years, forced expiratory volume in 1 s, FEV₁: 39%). Results: Both mean SaO₂ [salmeterol vs. placebo: 92.9% (91.2, 94.7) vs. 91.0% (88.9, 94.8); p = 0.016] and the percentage of sleep spent below 90% of SaO₂ [1.8% (0.0, 10.8) vs. 25.6% (0.5, 53.5); p = 0.005] improved significantly with salmeterol. Sleep quality was similar with both salmeterol and placebo on PSG. Static lung volumes, particularly trapped gas volume, tended to improve with salmeterol. Conclusion: We conclude that inhaled LABA therapy improves sleeping SaO₂ without significant change in sleep quality.

To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to report a carbapenem-resistant HMV K. pneumoniae strain in the USA. Ultimately, this case demonstrates the role of antibiotic pressure in the acquisition and loss of important genetic elements.

Background: Understanding the perceptions and beliefs of health care workers (HCWs) regarding glove use and associated hand hygiene (HH) may be informative and ultimately improve practice. Research in this area is limited. This study examined the practices and beliefs of HCWs surrounding the use of nonsterile gloves and HH before gloving. Methods:The study was conducted at 3 large academic US hospitals using a parallel convergent mixed-method design. To estimate compliance rates, the gloving and HH practices of HCWs were observed at entry to patient rooms for 6 months. Interviews were conducted with 25 providers, nurses, and nursing assistants to investigate their beliefs and perceptions of these practices.Results: Observed HH compliance rates before gloving were 42%, yet in the interviews most HCWs reported 100% compliance. Observed compliance with gloving before entering contact precaution rooms was 78%, although all HCWs reported always gloving for standard and contact precautions. Most HCWs described using gloves more often than necessary. HCWs generally use gloves for their own safety and sanitize hands before gloving for patient safety. Numerous barriers to compliance with HH before gloving were discussed, including beliefs that gloves provide enough protection.Conclusions: HH and glove use are highly intertwined in clinical practice and should be considered jointly in infection prevention improvement efforts.

Background Hand hygiene (HH) is recognized as a basic effective measure in prevention of nosocomial infections. However, the importance of HH before donning nonsterile gloves is unknown, and few published studies address this issue. Despite the lack of evidence, the World Health Organization and other leading bodies recommend this practice. The aim of this study was to assess the utility of HH before donning nonsterile gloves prior to patient contact. Methods A prospective, randomized, controlled trial of health care workers entering Contact Isolation rooms in intensive care units was performed. Baseline finger and palm prints were made from dominant hands onto agar plates. Health care workers were then randomized to directly don nonsterile gloves or perform HH and then don nonsterile gloves. Postgloving finger and palm prints were then made from the gloved hands. Plates were incubated and colony-forming units (CFU) of bacteria were counted. Results Total bacterial colony counts of gloved hands did not differ between the 2 groups (6.9 vs 8.1 CFU, respectively, P = .52). Staphylococcus aureus was identified from gloves (once in “hand hygiene prior to gloving” group, twice in “direct gloving” group). All other organisms were expected commensal flora. Conclusion HH before donning nonsterile gloves does not decrease already low bacterial counts on gloves. The utility of HH before donning nonsterile gloves may be unnecessary.