Background: High quality data pertaining to the size of the transgender and gender diverse (TGD) population are scant, however, several recently published studies may provide more reliable contemporary estimates. Aims: To summarize the estimated number and proportion of TGD individuals overall and across age groups, based on most accurate data. Methods: This systematic review focused on recent studies (published from 2009 through 2019) that utilized sound methodology in assessing the proportion of TGD people in the general population. Publications were included if they used clear definitions of TGD status, and calculated proportions based on a well-defined sampling frame. Nineteen eligible publications represented two broad categories of studies: those that used data from large health care systems; and those that identified TGD individuals from population surveys. Results: Among health system-based studies, TGD persons were identified using relevant diagnostic codes or clinical notes. The proportions of individuals with a TGD-relevant diagnosis or other recorded evidence ranged between 17 and 33 per 100,000 enrollees. In population surveys TGD status was ascertained based on self-report with either narrow or broad definitions. The survey-based estimates were orders of magnitude higher and consistent across studies using similar definitions. When the surveys specifically inquired about 'transgender' identity, the estimates ranged from 0.3% to 0.5% among adults, and from 1.2% to 2.7% among children and adolescents. When the definition was expanded to include broader manifestations of 'gender diversity', the corresponding proportions increased to 0.5-4.5% among adults and 2.5-8.4% among children and adolescents. Upward temporal trends in the proportion of TGD people were consistently observed. Conclusions: Current data indicate that people who self-identify as TGD represent a sizable and increasing proportion of the general population. This proportion may differ, depending on inclusion criteria, age, and geographic location, but well-conducted studies of similar type and design tend to produce comparable results.

Background A large portion of COVID-19 cases and deaths in the United States have occurred in nursing homes; however, current literature including the frontline perspective of staff working in nursing homes is limited. The objective of this qualitative assessment was to better understand what individual and facility level factors may have contributed to the impact of COVID-19 on Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) and Environmental Services (EVS) staff working in nursing homes. Methods Based on a simple random sample from the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN), 7,520 facilities were emailed invitations requesting one CNA and/or one EVS staff member for participation in a voluntary focus group over Zoom. Facility characteristics were obtained via NHSN and publicly available sources; participant demographics were collected via SurveyMonkey during registration and polling during focus groups. Qualitative information was coded using NVIVO and Excel. Results Throughout April 2021, 23 focus groups including 110 participants from 84 facilities were conducted homogenous by participant role. Staffing problems were a recurring theme reported. Participants often cited the toll the pandemic took on their emotional well-being, describing increased stress, responsibilities, and time needed to complete their jobs. The lack of consistent and systematic guidance resulting in frequently changing infection prevention protocols was also reported across focus groups. Conclusions Addressing concerns of low wages and lack of financial incentives may have the potential to attract and retain employees to help alleviate nursing home staff shortages. Additionally, access to mental health resources could help nursing home staff cope with the emotional burden of the COVID-19 pandemic. These frontline staff members provided invaluable insight and should be included in improvement efforts to support nursing homes recovering from the impact of COVID-19 as well as future pandemic planning.

Antibiotics are not indicated for the treatment of bronchitis and bronchiolitis. Using a nationally representative database from 2006–2015, we found that antibiotics were prescribed in 58% of outpatient visits for bronchitis and bronchiolitis in children, serving as a possible baseline for the expanded HEDIS 2020 measure regarding antibiotic prescribing for bronchitis.

Importance Two-step testing for Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) aims to improve diagnostic specificity, but may also influence reported epidemiology and patterns of treatment. Some providers fear that two-step testing may result in adverse outcomes if C. difficile is under-diagnosed. Objective Our primary objective was to assess the impact of two-step testing on reported incidence of hospital-onset CDI (HO-CDI). As secondary objectives, we assessed the impact of two-step testing on C. difficile-specific antibiotic use and colectomy rates as proxies for harm from underdiagnosis or delayed treatment. Design This longitudinal cohort study included 2,657,324 patient-days across eight regional hospitals from July 2017 through March 2022. Impact of two-step testing was assessed by time series analysis with generalized estimating equation regression models. Results Two-step testing was associated with a level decrease in HO-CDI incidence (incidence rate ratio 0.53, 95% CI 0.48-0.60, p<.0.001), a similar level decrease in utilization rates for oral vancomycin and fidaxomicin (utilization rate ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.58-0.70, p<0.001), and no significant level (rate ratio 1.16, 95% CI 0.93-1.43, p=0.18) or trend (rate ratio 0.85, 95% CI 0.52-1.39, p=0.51) change in emergent colectomy rates. Conclusions and Relevance Two-step testing is associated with decreased reported incidence of HO-CDI, likely by improving diagnostic specificity. The parallel decrease in C. difficile specific antibiotic use offers indirect reassurance against under-diagnosis of C. difficile infections still requiring treatment by clinician assessment. Similarly, the absence of any significant change in colectomy rates offers indirect reassurance against any rise in fulminant C. difficile requiring surgical management.

No abstract

Background: Non-adherence to dialysis recommendations is common and associated with poor outcomes. We used data from a cohort of in-center hemodialysis patients to determine whether patients' reported difficulties with adherence were associated with achievement of clinical targets for treatment recommendations. Patients and Methods: We included 799 in-center patients receiving hemodialysis from February 2010 to October 2016 at Emory Dialysis (Atlanta, GA, USA). Patient-reported difficulty with adherence (yes vs no) across multiple domains (coming to dialysis, completing dialysis sessions, fluid restrictions, diet restrictions, taking medications) was obtained from baseline social worker assessments. Achievement of clinical targets for coming to dialysis (missing ≥3 expected sessions), completing dialysis sessions (shortening >3 sessions by ≥15 min), fluid restrictions (mean interdialytic weight gain ≥3 kg), diet restrictions (mean potassium ≥5.0 mEq/L, mean phosphate >5.5 mg/dL), and taking medications (mean phosphate >5.5 mg/dL) was estimated over the following 12 weeks, using electronic medical record data. Crude agreement was assessed, and multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the associations between these measures. Results: Agreement between reported difficulty in adherence and failure to achieve clinical targets was generally poor across all domains (percent agreement: 52.9-65.3%). After adjustment, patients reporting difficulty with fluid restrictions were 62% more likely to have mean interdialytic weight gain ≥3 kg than those not reporting difficulty (OR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.08, 2.43). Patients reporting difficulty with coming to dialysis were 41% more likely to miss ≥3 expected dialysis sessions over 12 weeks (OR: 1.41, 95% CI: 0.96, 2.07); however, this association was not statistically significant. There were no significant associations between reported difficulty and failure to achieve clinical targets in other categories. Conclusion: While reported difficulty with only fluid restrictions and coming to dialysis were associated with failure to achieve clinical targets in our study, the general lack of agreement between reported difficulty with adherence and failure to achieve clinical targets highlights a gap that could be explored to develop and target educational interventions aimed at increasing adherence among dialysis patients.

Background: The Targeted Assessment for Prevention (TAP) strategy is a quality improvement framework created by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to facilitate the reduction of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). TAP facility assessments are a component of the TAP strategy and are completed by staff across the facility to help identify perceptions of and target infection prevention gaps. We have described the gaps most commonly reported by facilities completing TAP facility assessments for catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) and central-line–associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs). Methods: TAP CAUTI and CLABSI assessments were completed by acute-care facilities across the nation, with CDC technical assistance, from December 2014 to August 2019. Similar questions across 2 versions of CAUTI assessments and 3 versions of CLABSI assessments were combined. Analysis was limited to facilities with ≥10 assessments. Infection prevention gaps were defined as ≥33% respondents answering Unknown, ≥33% respondents answering “no,” or ≥50% of respondents answering “no” and “unknown” or “never” and “rarely” “sometimes” “unknown.” The analysis was completed at the facility level, and the gaps most commonly reported across facilities were identified. Results: In total, 1,942 CAUTI assessments from 42 facilities in 12 states and 1,623 CLABSI assessments from 29 facilities in 11 states were included for analysis. The mean numbers of assessments per facility were 46.2 for CAUTIs and 56.0 for CLABSIs. Across both CAUTIs and CLABSIs, commonly reported perceptions about infection prevention gaps included lack of physician and nurse champions for prevention activities, failure to conduct competency assessments, and inconsistency in select device insertion practices (Fig. 1). For CAUTIs, lack of practices to facilitate timely removal of urinary catheters were also commonly reported, with one-third of facilities reporting inconsistency in use of alerts for catheter removal, 78.6% reporting lack of physician response to these alerts, and 90.5% reporting deficiencies in removing unnecessary catheters in the postanesthesia care unit. For CLABSIs, 79.3% of facilities reported failure to replace central lines within 48 hours after emergent insertion, and 62.1% reported that feedback was not provided to staff on central-line device utilization ratios. Conclusion: For both assessments, absence of CAUTI and CLABSI prevention champions, failure to conduct competency assessments, and inconsistency in performing device insertion practices were commonly reported across facilities. These common gaps have and will continue to inform the development of tools and resources to improve infection prevention practices as well as help to better target the implementation of interventions.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None

Objective: To assist hospitals in reducing Clostridioides difficile infections (CDI), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) implemented a collaborative using the CDC CDI prevention strategies and the Targeted Assessment for Prevention (TAP) Strategy as foundational frameworks. Setting: Acute-care hospitals. Methods: We invited 400 hospitals with the highest cumulative attributable differences (CADs) to the 12-month collaborative, with monthly webinars, coaching calls, and deployment of the CDC CDI TAP facility assessments. Infection prevention barriers, gaps identified, and interventions implemented were qualitatively coded by categorizing them to respective CDI prevention strategies. Standardized infection ratios (SIRs) were reviewed to measure outcomes. Results: Overall, 76 hospitals participated, most often reporting CDI testing as their greatest barrier to achieving reduction (61%). In total, 5,673 TAP assessments were collected across 46 (61%) hospitals. Most hospitals (98%) identified at least 1 gap related to testing and at least 1 gap related to infrastructure to support prevention. Among 14 follow-up hospitals, 64% implemented interventions related to infrastructure to support prevention (eg, establishing champions, reviewing individual CDIs) and 86% implemented testing interventions (eg, 2-step testing, testing algorithms). The SIR decrease between the pre-collaborative and post-collaborative periods was significant among participants (16.7%; P < .001) but less than that among nonparticipants (25.1%; P < .001). Conclusions: This article describes gaps identified and interventions implemented during a comprehensive CDI prevention collaborative in targeted hospitals, highlighting potential future areas of focus for CDI prevention efforts as well as reported challenges and barriers to prevention of one of the most common healthcare-associated infections affecting hospitals and patients nationwide.