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

Antagonists of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS), including ACEIs (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors) and ARBs (angiotensin II receptor blockers), may prevent organ failure. We, therefore, investigated whether specific RAAS inhibitors are associated with reduced mortality in patients with sepsis.We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study using multivariable propensity score–based regression to control for differences among patients using different RAAS inhibitors. A multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional-hazards regression model was used to determine the association between RAAS inhibitors and sepsis outcomes. To directly compare ACEI users, ARB users, and nonusers, a 3-way propensity score matching approach was performed. Results were pooled with previous evidence via a random-effects meta-analysis. A total of 52 727 patients were hospitalized with sepsis, of whom 7642 were prescribed an ACEI and 4237 were prescribed an ARB. Using propensity score–matched analyses, prior ACEI use was associated with decreased 30-day mortality (hazard ratio, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.75–0.94]) and 90-day mortality (hazard ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.75–0.92]) compared with nonuse. Prior ARB use was associated with an improved 90-day survival (hazard ratio, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.83–0.94]). These results persisted in sensitivity analyses focusing on patients without cancer and patients with hypertension. By contrast, no beneficial effect was found for antecedent β-blockers exposure (hazard ratio, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.94–1.05]). The pooled estimates obtained from the meta-analysis was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.58–0.87) for prior use of ACEI/ARB.The short-term mortality after sepsis was substantially lower among those who were already established on RAAS inhibitor treatment when sepsis occurred.

No abstract

BackgroundContact precautions for endemic methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) are a resource-intensive intervention to reduce healthcare-associated infections, potentially impeding patient throughput and limiting bed availability to isolate other contagious pathogens. We investigated the impact of the discontinuation of contact precautions (DcCP) for endemic MRSA and VRE on patient outcomes and operations metrics in an acute care setting.MethodsThis is a retrospective, quasi-experimental analysis of the 12 months before and after DcCP for MRSA and VRE at an academic medical centre. The frequency for bed closures due to contact isolation was measured, and personal protective equipment (PPE) expenditures and patient satisfaction survey results were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Using an interrupted time series design, emergency department (ED) admission wait times and rates of patient falls, pressure ulcers and nosocomial MRSA and VRE clinical isolates were compared using GEEs.ResultsPrior to DcCP, bed closures for MRSA and/or VRE isolation were associated with estimated lost hospital charges of $9383 per 100 bed days (95% CI: 8447 to 10 318). No change in ED wait times or change in trend was observed following DcCP. There were significant reductions in monthly expenditures on gowns (−61.0%) and gloves (−16.3%). Patient satisfaction survey results remained stable. No significant changes in rates or trends were observed for patient falls or pressure ulcers. Incidence rates of nosocomial MRSA (1.58 (95% CI: 0.82 to 3.04)) and VRE (1.02 (95% CI: 0.82 to 1.27)) did not significantly change.ConclusionsDcCP was associated with an increase in bed availability and revenue recovery, and a reduction in PPE expenditures. Benefits for other hospital operations metrics and patient outcomes were not identified.

In the OPAT setting, vancomycin use was associated with higher incidence of ADEs than daptomycin use. This finding is an important policy consideration for programs aiming to optimize outcomes and minimize cost. Careful selection of gram-positive agents for prolonged treatment is necessary to limit toxicity.

Objective: To assess preventability of hospital-onset bacteremia and fungemia (HOB), we developed and evaluated a structured rating guide accounting for intrinsic patient and extrinsic healthcare-related risks. Design: HOB preventability rating guide was compared against a reference standard expert panel. Participants: A 10-member panel of clinical experts was assembled as the standard of preventability assessment, and 2 physician reviewers applied the rating guide for comparison. Methods: The expert panel independently rated 82 hypothetical HOB scenarios using a 6-point Likert scale collapsed into 3 categories: preventable, uncertain, or not preventable. Consensus was defined as concurrence on the same category among ≥70% experts. Scenarios without consensus were deliberated and followed by a second round of rating. Two reviewers independently applied the rating guide to adjudicate the same 82 scenarios in 2 rounds, with interim revisions. Interrater reliability was evaluated using the κ (kappa) statistic. Results: Expert panel consensus criteria were met for 52 scenarios (63%) after 2 rounds. After 2 rounds, guide-based rating matched expert panel consensus in 40 of 52 (77%) and 39 of 52 (75%) cases for reviewers 1 and 2, respectively. Agreement rates between the 2 reviewers were 84% overall (κ, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64–0.88]) and 87% (κ, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65–0.94) for the 52 scenarios with expert consensus. Conclusions: Preventability ratings of HOB scenarios by 2 reviewers using a rating guide matched expert consensus in most cases with moderately high interreviewer reliability. Although diversity of expert opinions and uncertainty of preventability merit further exploration, this is a step toward standardized assessment of HOB preventability.

No abstract

In a large system-wide healthcare personnel (HCP) testing experience using SARS-CoV-2 PCR and serologic testing early in the COVID-19 pandemic, we did not find increased infection risk related to COVID-19 patient contact. Our findings support workplace policies for HCP protection and underscore the role of community exposure and asymptomatic infection.