Background: Transmission of healthcare-associated pathogens such as Clostridioides difficile and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a persistent problem in healthcare facilities despite current control measures. A better understanding of the routes of pathogen transmission is needed to develop effective control measures. Methods: We conducted an observational cohort study in an acute-care hospital to identify the timing and route of transfer of pathogens to rooms of newly admitted patients with negative MRSA nares results and no known carriage of other healthcare-associated pathogens. Rooms were thoroughly cleaned and disinfected prior to patient admission. Interactions of patients with personnel and portable equipment were observed, and serial cultures for pathogens were collected from the skin of patients and from surfaces, including those observed to come in contact with personnel and equipment. For MRSA, spa typing was used to determine relatedness of patient and environmental isolates. Results: For the 17 patients enrolled, 1 or more environmental cultures became positive for MRSA in rooms of 10 patients (59%), for C. difficile in rooms of 2 patients (12%) and for vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) in rooms of 2 patients (12%). The patients interacted with an average of 2.4 personnel and 0.6 portable devices per hour of observation. As shown in Figure 1, MRSA contamination of the floor occurred rapidly as personnel entered the room. In a subset of patients, MRSA was subsequently recovered from patients’ socks and bedding and ultimately from the high-touch surfaces in the room (tray table, call button, bedrail). For several patients, MRSA isolates recovered from the floor had the same spa type as isolates subsequently recovered from other sites (eg, socks, bedding, and/or high touch surfaces). The direct transfer of healthcare-associated pathogens from personnel or equipment to high-touch surfaces was not detected. Conclusions: Healthcare-associated pathogens rapidly accumulate on the floor of patient rooms and can be transferred to the socks and bedding of patients and to high-touch surfaces. Healthcare facility floors may be an underappreciated source of pathogen dissemination not addressed by current infection control measures.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

Exposure investigations are labor intensive and vulnerable to recall bias. We developed an algorithm to identify healthcare personnel (HCP) interactions from the electronic health record (EHR), and we evaluated its accuracy against conventional exposure investigations. The EHR algorithm identified every known transmission and used ranking to produce a manageable contact list.

Environmental contamination of hospital rooms is well recognized as a reservoir for highly resistant nosocomial pathogens such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureu (MRSA) and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE), which can be transferred to patients through contact with healthcare providers and contaminated surfaces. Numerous studies dedicated to environmental cleaning and disinfection have found promising results with several novel technologies, including vaporized hydrogen peroxide and ultraviolet over-head lighting or wands. We conducted a pilot study of one such device, the Sterilray Disinfection Wand (Healthy Environment Innovations), a handheld ultraviolet (UV) room decontamination wand. The Sterilray device claims to generate UV radiation in the far-UV spectrum (185-230 nm), resulting in the rapid killing of contaminant bacteria. The goal of this pilot was to collect preliminary data on the efficacy of this device in reducing surface contamination, particularly of common nosocomial pathogens, in an active hospital setting.

Background: More than 50% of antibiotics used in hospitals are unnecessary or inappropriate. The antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) are coordinated efforts to promote the rational and effective use of antibiotics including appropriate selection, dosage, administration, and duration of therapy. When an ASP integrates infection control strategies, it is possible to decrease the transmission of multidrug-resistant pathogens. Methods: In 2018, 5 Colombian hospitals were selected to implement an ASP. Private and public hospitals from different cities were included in the study, ranging from 200 to 700 beds. Our team, consisting of an infectious disease and hospital epidemiologist, visited each hospital to establish the baseline of their ASP program, to define the ASP outcomes according to each hospital’s needs, and to set goals for ASP outcomes in the following 6–12 months. Follow-up was scheduled every 2 months through Skype video conference. The baseline diagnosis or preintervention evaluation was done using a tool adapted from previous reports (ie, international consensus and The Joint Commission international standards). Documentation related to ASPs, such as microbiological profiles, antimicrobial guidelines (AMG) and indicators for the adherence to them as well as antimicrobial resistance (AMR) prevention through protocols, were written and/or updated. Prevention and infection control requirements and protocols were also updated, and cleaning and antiseptic policies were created. Training in rational use of antibiotic, infection control and prevention, and cleaning and disinfection were carried out with the healthcare workers in each institution. Results: Before the intervention, the development of the ASP according to the tool was 27% (range, 5%–47%). The lowest institutional scores were the item related to ASP feedback and reports (11% on average), followed by education and training (14%), defined ASP responsibilities (23%), ASP function according to priorities (26%), and AMR surveillance (27%). After the intervention, the ASP development increased to 57% (range, 39%–81%) in the hospitals. The highest scores achieved were for education and training (90%), surveillance (75%), and the activities of the infection control committee (70%). The items that made the greatest contribution to ASP development were the individual antibiogram, including the bacteria resistance profile, and the development of the AMG based on the local epidemiology in each hospital. Conclusions: The implementation of an ASP should include training and education as well as defining outcomes according to the hospital’s needs. Once the strategy is implemented, follow-up is key to achieving the goals.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

Background: Automated testing instruments (ATIs) are commonly used by clinical microbiology laboratories to perform antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST), whereas public health laboratories may use established reference methods such as broth microdilution (BMD). We investigated discrepancies in carbapenem minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) among Enterobacteriaceae tested by clinical laboratory ATIs and by reference BMD at the CDC. Methods: During 2016–2018, we conducted laboratory- and population-based surveillance for carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) through the CDC Emerging Infections Program (EIP) sites (10 sites by 2018). We defined an incident case as the first isolation of Enterobacter spp (E. cloacae complex or E. aerogenes), Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, K. oxytoca, or K. variicola resistant to doripenem, ertapenem, imipenem, or meropenem from normally sterile sites or urine identified from a resident of the EIP catchment area in a 30-day period. Cases had isolates that were determined to be carbapenem-resistant by clinical laboratory ATI MICs (MicroScan, BD Phoenix, or VITEK 2) or by other methods, using current Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) criteria. A convenience sample of these isolates was tested by reference BMD at the CDC according to CLSI guidelines. Results: Overall, 1,787 isolates from 112 clinical laboratories were tested by BMD at the CDC. Of these, clinical laboratory ATI MIC results were available for 1,638 (91.7%); 855 (52.2%) from 71 clinical laboratories did not confirm as CRE at the CDC. Nonconfirming isolates were tested on either a MicroScan (235 of 462; 50.9%), BD Phoenix (249 of 411; 60.6%), or VITEK 2 (371 of 765; 48.5%). Lack of confirmation was most common among E. coli (62.2% of E. coli isolates tested) and Enterobacter spp (61.4% of Enterobacter isolates tested) (Fig. 1A), and among isolates testing resistant to ertapenem by the clinical laboratory ATI (52.1%, Fig. 1B). Of the 1,388 isolates resistant to ertapenem in the clinical laboratory, 1,006 (72.5%) were resistant only to ertapenem. Of the 855 nonconfirming isolates, 638 (74.6%) were resistant only to ertapenem based on clinical laboratory ATI MICs. Conclusions: Nonconfirming isolates were widespread across laboratories and ATIs. Lack of confirmation was most common among E. coli and Enterobacter spp. Among nonconfirming isolates, most were resistant only to ertapenem. These findings may suggest that ATIs overcall resistance to ertapenem or that isolate transport and storage conditions affect ertapenem resistance. Further investigation into this lack of confirmation is needed, and CRE case identification in public health surveillance may need to account for this phenomenon.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None