No abstract

KD is a common childhood vasculitis of unknown etiology. The skewed ethnic distribution and seasonality are consistent with the hypothesis that KD is an infectious disease that is influenced by environmental and genetic factors.

During spring 2001, college students from Pennsylvania reported an acute febrile respiratory illness after returning from spring break vacation in Acapulco, Mexico. Acute pulmonary histoplasmosis was presumptively diagnosed and the cluster of illness was reported to the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention. A large investigation then ensued, which included finding student-travelers for interviews and requesting sera for histoplasmosis testing. We defined a clinical case by fever and at least one of the following: cough, shortness of breath, chest pain, or headache, in an Acapulco traveler during March−May 2001. A laboratory-confirmed case had positive serology. An initial study determined that the likely site of histoplasmosis exposure was Hotel H; we therefore performed a large cohort study among travelers who stayed at Hotel H. Of 757 contacted, 262 (36%) met the clinical case definition. Of 273 serum specimens tested, 148 (54%) were positive. Frequent use of Hotel H's stairwells, where construction was ongoing, was associated with increased risk of illness (relative risk ‫ס‬ 10.5, 95% confidence interval ‫ס‬ 3.7-30.5; P < 0.001). This is the first histoplasmosis outbreak associated with a hotel undergoing construction. Hotels in endemic areas should consider construction precaution measures to prevent histoplasmosis among their guests.

Passive surveillance for KD in San Diego County resulted in the reporting of approximately two-thirds of the eligible patients at the county and state levels but completely failed to report any documented cases to the CDC. Implementation of a sentinel hospital reporting system should be considered as a preferred alternative to national passive surveillance in the effort to track total numbers of patients and to follow disease trends over time.

Background Information and opinions shared by health care providers can affect patient vaccination decisions, but little is known about who health care providers themselves trust for information in the context of new COVID-19 vaccines. Objective The purpose of this study is to investigate which sources of information about COVID-19 vaccines are trusted by health care providers and how they communicate this information to patients. Methods This mixed methods study involved a one-time, web-based survey of health care providers and qualitative interviews with a subset of survey respondents. Health care providers (physicians, advanced practice providers, pharmacists, nurses) were recruited from an integrated health system in Southern California using voluntary response sampling, with follow-up interviews with providers who either accepted or declined a COVID-19 vaccine. The outcome was the type of information sources that respondents reported trusting for information about COVID-19 vaccines. Bivariate tests were used to compare trusted information sources by provider type; thematic analysis was used to explore perspectives about vaccine information and communicating with patients about vaccines. Results The survey was completed by 2948 providers, of whom 91% (n=2683) responded that they had received ≥1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. The most frequently trusted source of COVID-19 vaccine information was government agencies (n=2513, 84.2%); the least frequently trusted source was social media (n=691, 9.5%). More physicians trusted government agencies (n=1226, 93%) than nurses (n=927, 78%) or pharmacists (n=203, 78%; P<.001), and more physicians trusted their employer (n=1115, 84%) than advanced practice providers (n=95, 67%) and nurses (n=759, 64%; P=.002). Qualitative themes (n=32 participants) about trusted sources of COVID-19 vaccine information were identified: processing new COVID-19 information in a health care work context likened to a “war zone” during the pandemic and communicating information to patients. Some providers were hesitant to recommend vaccines to pregnant people and groups they perceived to be at low risk for COVID-19. Conclusions Physicians have stronger trust in government sources and their employers for information about COVID-19 vaccines compared with nurses, pharmacists, and advanced practice providers. Strategies such as role modeling, tailored messaging, or talking points with standard language may help providers to communicate accurate COVID-19 vaccine information to patients, and these strategies may also be used with providers with lower levels of trust in reputable information sources.

Introduction: There is evidence for relatively lower COVID-19 vaccine uptake among people of color in the United States. The purpose of this study was to investigate associations between race/ethnicity and COVID-19 vaccine uptake among nurses. Methods: Nurses in Southern California ( N = 1183) completed a one-time, web-based survey to assess COVID-19 vaccine perceptions and uptake. Results: In all, 82.8% of respondents ( N = 979) received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose. Identifying as East Asian was associated with 14% higher odds of COVID-19 vaccine uptake relative to identifying as White (odds ratio [OR] = 1.14/95% confidence interval [CI] = [1.06, 1.24]); identifying as Filipino was associated with 14% higher odds of uptake (OR = 1.14/95% CI = [1.08, 1.20]); and identifying as Hispanic/Latinx was associated with 6% higher odds of uptake (OR = 1.06/95% CI = [1.00, 1.12]). Discussion: Although nurses and people of color have been identified as groups with low levels of COVID-19 vaccine uptake, this study found that nurses of color received the vaccine at higher levels than their White counterparts.

Wheezing is present on examination of some patients with pertussis in a highly vaccinated pediatric population and appears to delay the diagnosis of pertussis. The presence of wheezing should not be used to exclude this diagnosis in children with chronic cough or other reasons to suspect pertussis.

Background: There is evidence of disparities in COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among health care providers. The purpose of this study was to examine confidence receiving and recommending COVID-19 vaccines by health care provider type and race/ethnicity. Methods: This mixed methods study involved a cross-sectional survey and qualitative, semi-structured interviews from March to May 2021 among a sample of physicians, advanced practice providers, nurses, and pharmacists. These workers were recruited through voluntary response sampling from an integrated health system in Southern California. The primary dependent variables were (a) confidence in vaccine safety, (b) confidence in vaccine effectiveness, and (c) intent to recommend the vaccine to others. The primary independent variables were health care provider type and race/ethnicity. Findings: A total of 2,948 providers completed the survey. Nurses relative to physicians were 15% less likely to perceive the COVID-19 vaccine to be safe (risk ratio [RR] = 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.83–0.87); 27% less likely to perceive the vaccine to prevent COVID-19 (RR = 0.73; 95% CI = 0.69–0.76); and 11% less likely to recommend the vaccine to others (RR = 0.89; 95% CI = 0.87–0.91). Hispanic/Latinx providers were 10% less likely to perceive the vaccine to prevent COVID-19 (RR = 0.90; 95% CI = 0.83–0.98) relative to White providers. Qualitative themes included: No need for vaccine; distrusting vaccine research and roll-out; caretaking barriers; uncertainty and potential to change one’s mind; framing vaccine decisions around personal beliefs. Conclusions & Application to Practice: Health care workplaces should consider interventions to increase COVID-19 vaccination among their workers, including education and mandatory vaccination policies.