Nosocomial COVID-19 Research Articles

Preventive measures against the spread of nosocomial COVID-19 infection: a report of experiences in an obstetric facility at a regional hospital in Japan

We describe the emergency measures taken in response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in an obstetrics ward in Japan. In April 2020, two midwives in our obstetric ward were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. We immediately closed the ward and performed polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for 25 patients and 42 staff members who had possible contact with the midwives. Pregnant women at or near term were referred to nearby obstetric facilities. One patient, who delivered before the midwives were diagnosed, and her neonate tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. All other tested patients and staff had negative PCR test results. In total, 14 pregnant women at term and 15 at 34–36 weeks gestation were referred to other facilities. Of these, 13 delivered in transfer destinations and 16 delivered in our hospital after a 14-day temporary closure of the ward. Our prompt measures successfully prevented the nosocomial spread of coronavirus disease.

ANALYSIS OF NURSE'S EFFORTS TO CONTROL NOSOCOMIAL INFECTIONS IN THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC PERIOD IN HOSPITAL

Nosocomial infection is an infection acquired from the hospital. The risk of nosocomial disease can occur in addition to patients treated in the hospital. It can also happen in hospital staff, including nurses. The purpose of this study was to identify respondent characteristics and analyze the relationship between the knowledge and skills of nurses on efforts to control the Nosocomial infection chain during the Covid-19 pandemic. This research is quantitative research with observational analytic and using a cross-sectional research design. The sampling technique used in this study was cluster random sampling with a sample size of 51 respondents. Data analysis in this study used the SPSS test with Spearman Rank analysis. This study indicated that the majority of respondents are in the age range between 20-30 years, as many as 34 respondents (66.7%). The majority of them are female, as many as 35 respondents (68.6%). Most respondents were a Bachelor's degree, as many as 26 respondents (51,0%). Lastly, most respondents had a service period of > 5 years, as many as 25 respondents (49.0%). The results of the Spearman Rank analysis show that the p-value is 0.015, which means less than < 0.05, which means that there is a significant relationship between knowledge and skills of nurses in nosocomial infection chain control efforts during the Pandemic Covid-19. Therefore, apart from providing personal protective equipment (PPE), hospital management must educate health workers, especially nurses, about controlling the chain of nosocomial infections and Covid-19.
 Keywords: Nosocomial Infection; Nurse; Knowledge; Skills

Racial Disparities in Potentially Avoidable Hospitalizations During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Potentially avoidable hospitalizations are disproportionately experienced by racial and ethnic minorities and expose these groups to unnecessary iatrogenic harm (including the risk of nosocomial COVID-19) and undue financial burden. In working toward an overarching goal of eliminating racial and ethnic health disparities, it is important to understand whether and to what extent potentially avoidable hospitalizations have changed by race and ethnicity during the COVID-19 pandemic. This single-center pre-post study included patients admitted to any UCLA Health hospital for an ambulatory care-sensitive condition between March-August 2019 (prepandemic period) and March-August 2020 (postpandemic period). Investigators measured the change in the number of potentially avoidable hospitalizations (defined per the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality guidelines) stratified by race and ethnicity and calculated the 95% CIs for these hospitalizations using a cluster bootstrap procedure. Between March 1, 2020 and August 31, 2020, 347 of 4,838 hospitalizations (7.2%) were potentially avoidable, compared with 557 of 6,248 (8.9%) during the same 6-month period in 2019. Potentially avoidable hospitalizations decreased by 50.3% (95% CI=41.2, 60.9) among non-Hispanic Whites but only by 8.0% (95% CI= -16.2, 39.9) among African Americans (50.3% vs 8.0%, p=0.015). Racial disparities in potentially avoidable hospitalizations increased during the COVID-19 pandemic at a large urban health system. Given that the prepandemic rates of potentially avoidable hospitalizations were already higher among racial and ethnic minorities, especially among African Americans, this finding should cause alarm and lead to further exploration of the complex factors contributing to these disparities.

Prospective surveillance study in a 1,400-bed university hospital: COVID-19 exposure at home was the main risk factor for SARS-CoV-2 point seroprevalence among hospital staff.

The Co‐HCW study is a prospective cohort study among hospital staff, including healthcare workers (HCWs) and administration staff, at the Jena University Hospital (JUH), Germany. The objectives of this study were to assess SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG seroprevalence, individual exposure risk factors and compliance of HCWs to wear personal protective equipment (PPE). After the first nosocomial COVID‐19 outbreak at JUH, mandatory masking was implemented on 20th March 2020. We evaluated point seroprevalence using two IgG detecting immunoassays and issued a questionnaire to assess COVID‐19 exposure, clinical symptoms and compliance to wear PPE. Antibody retesting was offered to participants with a divergent result of both immunoassays 5–10 weeks after the first test. Between 19th May and 19th June 2020, we analysed 660 participants [out of 3,228; 20.4%]. Among them, 212 participants (32.1%) had received a previous COVID‐19 test. Four of them (1.9%) reported a positive test result. After recruitment, 18 participants (2.7%) had SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies in at least one immunoassay. Overall, 21 participants (3.2%) had any evidence of a past or current SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Among them, 13 (61.9%) were not aware of direct COVID‐19 exposure and 9 (42.9%) did not report any clinical symptoms. COVID‐19 exposure at home (adjusted OR (aOR) with 95% CI: 47.82 (5.49, 416.62)) was associated with SARS‐CoV‐2 seroprevalence. We observed no evidence for an association between seroprevalence and exposure at work (aOR 0.48 (0.13, 1.70)) or with COVID‐19 risk area according to the working place (aOR for intermediate‐risk vs. high‐risk: 1.97 (0.42, 9.22), aOR for low‐risk versus high‐risk: 2.10 (0.40, 11.06); p = .655). Reported compliance of HCWs to wear PPE differed (p < .001) between working in high‐risk (98.3%) and in intermediate‐risk areas (69.8%). In conclusion, compared to administration staff, we observed no additional risk to acquire SARS‐CoV‐2 infections by patient care, probably due to high compliance to wear PPE.

Explosive Nosocomial Outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 in a Rehabilitation Clinic: The Limits of Genomics for Outbreak Reconstruction

Background: Nosocomial outbreaks of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are frequent despite implementation of conventional infection control measures. We performed an outbreak investigation using advanced genomic and statistical techniques to reconstruct likely transmission chains and assess the role of healthcare workers (HCWs) in SARS-CoV-2 transmission.Methods: We investigated a nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in a university-affiliated rehabilitation clinic, involving patients and HCWs, with high coverage of pathogen whole genome sequences (WGS). We estimated the time-varying reproduction number from epidemiological data (Rt) and produced a maximum likelihood phylogeny to assess genetic diversity of the pathogen. We combined genomic and epidemiological data into a Bayesian framework to model directionality of transmission. We performed a case-control study to investigate risk factors for nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 acquisition in patients.Findings: The outbreak spanned from March 14 to April 12, 2020 and involved 37 patients (31 with WGS) and 39 employees (31 with WGS) of whom 37 are HCWs. We estimated a peak Rt between 2·2 – 3·6. The phylogenetic tree showed very limited genetic diversity, with 60/62 (96·7%) isolates forming one large cluster of identical genomes. Despite the resulting uncertainty in reconstructed transmission events, our analyses suggest that HCWs (one of whom was the index case) played an essential role in cross-transmission, with a significantly larger fraction of infections (p 5: 82·3%; 95%CI 81·8% - 83·4%). Furthermore, frail patients were found to be at greater risk for nosocomial COVID-19 than other patients (adjusted OR 6·94; 95%CI 2·13 – 22·57).Interpretation: This outbreak report highlights the essential role of HCWs in SARS-CoV-2 transmission dynamics in healthcare settings. Limited genetic diversity in pathogen genomes hampered the reconstruction of individual transmission events, resulting in substantial uncertainty in who infected whom. However, our study shows that despite such uncertainty, significant transmission patterns can be observed.Funding: This work was supported by a grant from the Swiss National Science Foundation under the NRP78 Covid-19 funding scheme (Grant no. 4078P0_198363).Declaration of Interests: All authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.Ethics Approval Statement: Outbreak investigations are within the purview of the IPC programme. For additional investigations, the local Ethic Committee approved this study (no. 2020-01330).

Assessing COVID-19 cohorting strategies in a UK district general hospital during the first wave of COVID-19

Patient-to-patient transmission has a well-recognised role in nosocomial COVID-19 infections,[1][1] but identifying and isolating infectious individuals is challenging, due to limitations in the speed and accuracy of testing.[2][2] To mediate this, many hospitals attempted to cohort patients based

Acknowledging the Burden of Nosocomial COVID-19: Results from a Multi-Centre Retrospective Observational Study of 2518 Adults Hospitalised Across the Nation of Wales

Background: The burden of hospital-acquired (nosocomial) COVID-19 remains poorly defined with variation in case-definitions used for reporting and little publicly-available information concerning outcomes.Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational study of adult patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) hospitalised across Wales between 1st March – 1st July 2020. An electronic survey was used to capture patient outcome following admission until 20th November. The prevalence and outcomes for nosocomial COVID-19 were assessed across of a range of possible case definitions.Findings: The study included 2518 patients from 18 major hospitals sites across Wales and collected outcomes on patients discharged up to 20 th November, representing approximately 60% of patients hospitalised. Inpatient mortality rates for nosocomial COVID-19 ranged from 38% to 42%, and remained consistently higher than patients with community-acquired infection (31% to 35%) across a range of case definitions. Nosocomial patients were older, frailer and multi-morbid population than those with community-acquired disease, even when categorised using a 2-day cut-off. Based on the Public Health Wales case definition of nosocomial COVID-19 infection, 50% of cases had been admitted for 30 days prior to diagnostic testing.Interpretation: This represents the largest assessment of clinical outcomes for patients with nosocomial COVID-19 in the UK to date. These findings suggest that inpatient mortality rates from nosocomial-infection are likely higher than previously reported, emphasizing the importance of infection control measures, and suggests opportunities for inpatient vaccination of vulnerable cohorts.Funding: Welsh Government, Respiratory Health Implementation Group, UK Coronavirus Immunology Consortium, Wellcome Trust Senior Fellowship (to IRH), WCAT Fellowship (to MJP).Declaration of Interests: We declare no competing interests.Ethics Approval Statement: This project constitutes the evaluation/audit arm of the National Pathway for Managing COVID-19 Infections in Secondary Care in Wales. As such, the requirement for formal ethical review or approval was not required

COVID-19 Outbreak During Inpatient Rehabilitation: Impact on Settings and Clinical Course of Neuromusculoskeletal Rehabilitation Patients.

The COVID-19 pandemic affects a large number of patients. The impact on feasibility and outcome of rehabilitation during COVID-19 actually remains unclear. Nosocomial infection of healthcare workers or hospitalized patients is common, and prevention of nosocomial infections during rehabilitation is challenging. Therefore, we analyzed a cohort of nosocomial infected COVID-19 patients in a single-center inpatient rehabilitation clinic and described performance and outcome. The cohort (N = 27) describes patients with nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection while participating in neuromusculoskeletal rehabilitation. Infection was caused by an initially unidentified so-called superspreader. We compared this cohort with all neuromusculoskeletal rehabilitation inpatients of 2019 (comparison group). Normally distributed continuous variables were presented as mean with standard deviation and the t test was used for comparison between groups. Linear regression was used to assess the impact of COVID-19 on Functional Independence Measure at discharge. COVID-19 patients were mostly male (66.7%) with an age of 71.5 ± 12.3 yrs. Age, sex, and cumulated comorbidities of the comparison group (n = 786) were not different from the COVID-19 group. A total of 92.6% of COVID-19 patients had a mild or moderate course, two patients had to be referred to acute hospital because of respiratory failure, and one of these patients died in the acute hospital. After implementation of a strict hygiene concept, no further nosocomial COVID-19 infections were detected. The rehabilitation duration was significantly longer in the COVID-19 group (54.2 ± 23.6 days vs. 32.1 ± 17.7 days, P < 0.001). Daily therapy duration was 132.3 ± 44 mins before SARS-CoV-2 infection and reduced to 81.9 ± 27.3 mins during COVID-19 (P < 0.001). After discontinuation of isolation measures, therapy duration increased significantly (99.3 ± 70.2 mins, P < 0.05).The baseline Functional Independence Measure score was higher in the COVID-19 group (91.93 ± 25.64 points vs. 82.98 ± 22.73 points) and Functional Independence Measure improvements were lower in COVID-19 patients than in the 2019 comparison group (6.96 ± 8.96 points vs. 20.3 ± 15.98 points, P < 0.001). COVID-19 infection itself had a strong negative impact on Functional Independence Measure change as identified by regression analysis. Linear regression analysis showed that COVID-19 reduced the Functional Independence Measure at discharge by 8.9 points (95% CI = -14.725 to -3.097, P = 0.003) after correction for Functional Independence Measure at admission, age, sex, and morbidity index at admission. COVID-19 had a strong negative impact on rehabilitation benefits as assessed by Functional Independence Measure. Neuromusculoskeletal rehabilitation could be continued, but all patients received less therapy minutes during isolation. After implementation of a strict COVID-19-specific hygiene concept, no further infections were detected.

Robotic HPB surgery and impact of COVID-19 in a community hospital setting

Presenter: Imran Siddiqui MD ;Hartford Healthcare St.Vincent's Medical Center Background: Complex hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) surgery is associated with high morbidity even in high volume tertiary care centers. Minimally invasive robotic HPB surgeries including robotic whipple and major hepatectomies are resource intense. The COVID-19 pandemic has brought about new challenges in terms of resources and patient safety. We evaluate outcomes of patients undergoing Robotic HPB oncology surgery at high volume community center during COVID-19 pandemic Methods: All patients undergoing robotic HPB and foregut surgery for malignancies from March 2020 to January 2021 were included. Non-malignant indications were excluded. Mortality, morbidity, length of stay and oncologic outcomes were evaluated. Nosocomial COVID-19 infection and mortality and morbidity associated with it were evaluated separately Results: 33 patients were included out of which 22 of which were robotic and others included laparoscopy and hybrid approaches Surgeries included robotic whipple, robotic major hepatectomies, robotic gastrectomies, robotic duodenal resection, robotic biliary and gastric bypass surgery. Clavien III/IV morbidity was 6.5%. There was no post-operative respiratory failure or 30-day mortality. No patients were diagnosed with COVID 19 in the postoperative setting and none developed symptoms in the 30-day post-operative period. All patients were cared for in dedicated non COVID units and were discharged home or COVID free rehab centers. All patients who needed adjuvant treatment received it in a timely setting. Conclusion: Although COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on the mortality and morbidity in the general setting and data has demonstrated worse outcomes for patients with COVID-19 in the post-operative period, we describe in this case series that with COVID safety protocols and preoperative testing, even complex and resource intense surgeries like robotic HPB surgeries can be performed safely in a community hospital setting with significant resource limitations.

Clinical Outcome in Patients with Nosocomial COVID-19 Infection After Thoracic Surgery.

In the present study, we retrospectively evaluated outcomes in 8 patients (mean age 67±7, range 55-77years; male/female 7/1) who acquired nosocomial COVID-19 infection postoperatively out of the 39 adults who underwent elective thoracic surgery in November 2020. All patients were tested negative for COVID-19 on admission. The mortality rate in the eight patients was 25%. The surviving six patients were discharged in a good clinical condition. Fatal outcomes were due to the development of severe and unrelenting acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and were associated with preoperatively reduced serum albumin (<3g/dL), an open surgical approach, oxygen saturation <90% at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, and the real-time PCR cycle threshold (Ct) value <20. A high mortality rate indicates a need for systematic and frequent COVID-19 screening in patients scheduled for elective thoracic surgery and the use of minimally invasive procedures whenever feasible.

Nosocomial Infection Outbreak due to SARS-COV-2 in a Hospital Unit of Particularly Vulnerable Patients

Objectives: To report a COVID-19 outbreak among workers and inpatients at a medical ward for especially vulnerable patients.Methods: Descriptive study of a nosocomial COVID-19 outbreak registered in March-April 2020 at medical ward of onco-hematological patients in an Spanish hospital. Confirmed cases were hospitalized patients, healthcare and non-healthcare workers who tested positive by PCR on a nasopharyngeal swab.Results: Twenty-two COVID-19 cases (12 workers and 10 inpatients) were laboratory-confirmed. Initial cases were a healthcare provider and a visitor who tested positive. The median patients age was 73 years (range 62-88). The main reason of admission was haematological in 8 patients and oncologic in 2. All patients followed an immunosuppressive treatment, 5/10 with high-flow oxygen nebulizations. Five patients presented a moderate/serious evolution, and 5 patients died. The mean workers age was 42.1±10.9. One healthworker required Intensive Care Unit admission, and all of them recovered completely.Conclusions: In the hospital setting, close patients surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 is essential, especially in immunosuppressed patients. Replacing nebulizations or high-flow oxygen therapies, when other equivalent options were available, to reduce dispersion, and controlling ventilation ducts, together with hygiene measures and an active follow-up on inpatients, visitors and workers appear to be important in preventing nosocomial outbreaks.

1. Incidence of Nosocomial COVID-19 in Patients Hospitalized at a Large U.S. Academic Medical Center

BackgroundMany patients are avoiding essential care for fear of contracting Covid-19 in healthcare settings. However, the incidence of nosocomial Covid-19 infection in U.S. acute care hospitals is unknown.MethodsWe conducted an observational study of all patients admitted to Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts between March 7 (when the first Covid-19 patient was admitted) and May 30, 2020. During this period, a comprehensive infection control program was implemented including dedicated Covid-19 units with airborne infection isolation rooms, personal protective equipment (PPE) in accordance with CDC recommendations, PPE donning and doffing monitors, universal masking, restriction of visitors, and liberal RT-PCR testing of symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. We reviewed the medical records of all patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR on hospital day 3 or later or within 14 days of hospital discharge to determine whether infection was community or hospital-acquired based on timing of RT-PCR tests, clinical course, and exposures.ResultsOver the 12-week period, 9,149 patients were admitted, in whom 7,394 SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests were performed and 697 Covid-19 cases were confirmed, translating into a total 8,656 days of Covid-19-related care (Figure). The inpatient Covid-19 census peaked at 171 on April 21. Twelve of the 697 Covid-19 patients (1.7%) were first diagnosed by RT-PCR on hospital day 3 or later (median 4 days, range 3–15 days). Of these, only one was deemed hospital-acquired and was most likely acquired from his pre-symptomatic spouse who was visiting daily and diagnosed with Covid-19 before visitor restrictions were implemented. Amongst 8,370 non-Covid-19 patients discharged through June 17, 11 (0.1%) subsequently tested positive within 14 days (median time to diagnosis 6 days, range 1–14). Only one was deemed likely to have been hospital-acquired, albeit with no known exposures.Figure. Timeline of implementation of major infection control policies and cumulative number of hospitalized COVID-19 cases (total and hospital-onset) ConclusionNosocomial Covid-19 infection was exceedingly rare during the height of the pandemic in a hospital with rigorous infection control measures. Our findings may inform practices in other institutions and provide reassurance to patients regarding the safety of receiving care in acute care hospitals.Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

Safety and Operational Efficiency of Restructuring and Redeploying a Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Service During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Oxford Experience

BackgroundThe risk of nosocomial COVID-19 infection for vulnerable aortic stenosis patients and intensive care resource utilization has led to cardiac surgery deferral. Untreated severe symptomatic aortic stenosis has a dismal prognosis. TAVR offers an attractive alternative to surgery as it is not reliant on intensive care resources. We set out to explore the safety and operational efficiency of restructuring a TAVR service and redeploying it to a new non-surgical site during the COVID-19 pandemic. MethodsThe institutional prospective service database was retrospectively interrogated for the first 50 consecutive elective TAVR cases prior to and after our institution's operational adaptations for the COVID-19 pandemic. Our endpoints were VARC-2 defined procedural complications, 30-day mortality or re-admission and service efficiency metrics. ResultsThe profile of patients undergoing TAVR during the pandemic was similar to patients undergoing TAVR prior to the pandemic with the exception of a lower mean age (79 vs 82 years, p < 0.01) and median EuroScore II (3.1% vs 4.6%, p = 0.01). The service restructuring and redeployment contributed to the pandemic-mandated operational efficiency with a reduction in the distribution of pre-admission hospital visits (3 vs 3 visits, p < 0.001) and the time taken from TAVR clinic to procedure (26 vs 77 days, p < 0.0001) when compared to the pre-COVID-19 service. No statistically significant difference was noted in peri-procedural complications and 30-day outcomes, while post-operative length of stay was significantly reduced (2 vs 3 days, p < 0.0001) when compared to pre-COVID-19 practice. ConclusionsTAVR service restructuring and redeployment to align with pandemic-mandated healthcare resource rationalization is safe and feasible.

Should Deep Brain Stimulation Programs Be Halted During the COVID-19 Pandemic? Balancing the Risk of COVID-19 Infection Against the Survival Benefits of DBS

To the Editor: The COVID-19 pandemic has rapidly spread over the world. Numerous infections and fatalities have been reported in almost all countries. Facing the challenge of steadily increasing patients, limited amount of protection equipment and ventilators, resources have been relocated towards emergency departments and intensive care units. Nonemergency elective procedures such as deep brain stimulation (DBS) for patients with Parkinson’s disease have been postponed. It has been discussed that most functional neurosurgery patients are vulnerable to the COVID-19 pandemic and at a higher risk for becoming critically ill infected. Therefore, most centers have halted their DBS programs. Undisputed is that hardware infections and battery replacements require urgent action to prevent sepsis, neuroinfections or akinetic crisis and death, eventually (1.Miocinovic S Ostrem JL Okun MS Bullinger KL Riva-Posse P Gross RE Buetefisch CM. Recommendations for deep brain stimulation device management during a pandemic.J Parkinsons Dis. 2020; 10 (https://doi.org/10.3233/JPD-202072.): 903-910Crossref PubMed Scopus (34) Google Scholar,2.Gross RE et al.Letter: evaluation and surgical treatment of functional neurosurgery patients with implanted deep brain stimulation and vagus nerve stimulation pulse generators during the COVID-19 pandemic.Neurosurgery. 2020; 87: E222-E226Crossref PubMed Scopus (8) Google Scholar). We would like to highlight the fact that Parkinson’s disease (PD) itself is a condition with high mortality rate and complement the rationale that for any functional neurosurgery procedure, and DBS for PD in particular, we should always weigh the imminent risk of a COVID-19 infection against the long term clinical benefits of the procedure. As it remains unclear how long the pandemic will last, and if there will be a second peak, this becomes crucially important. Despite progress in medical management of PD, it does not appear to have altered the mortality rate nor significantly delayed the onset of nonmotor symptoms. Life expectancy remains decreased with the main cause of death being respiratory failure from aspiration pneumonia caused by dysphagia due to brady- or dyskinesia and rigidity of the muscles involved in the act of swallowing. Other causes of death include the deterioration of general condition, cardiovascular disease, traumatic injuries due to postural instability and sepsis. Co-evolving depression and dementia as well as the need for admittance to residential care facilities are associated with higher mortality and increased risk of suicide. All in all, 11 years is the median duration from the onset of PD until death (3.Duarte J García Olmos LM Mendoza A Clavería LE. The natural history of Parkinson’s disease in the province of Segovia: mortality in a longitudinal study (20-year follow-up).Acta Neurol. Scand. 2013; 127 (https://doi.org/10.1111/ane.12003.): 295-300Crossref PubMed Scopus (27) Google Scholar). DBS of the subthalamic nucleus has become an established pillar of the therapy continuum of patients with beginning motor fluctuations and suboptimal medical management, mainly improving motor symptoms (4.Deuschl G Schade-Brittinger C Agid Y EARLYSTIM Study GroupNeurostimulation for Parkinson’s disease with early motor complications.N Engl J Med. 2013; 368: 2038Google Scholar). Moreover, it has shown to improve survival rates in PD patients. A prospective, open-labeled, nonrandomized study by Ngoga et al. followed 147 patients who were offered a DBS procedure by a joint medical/surgical movement disorders clinic over the course of a 10 years period; 106 patients underwent DBS procedure whilst 41 patients prefered medical management. The mortality rate of patients who underwent DBS was significantly lower (17%) compared to patients who received medical management (41.5%), so was admittance to residential nursing care (5.7% vs. 36.6%) (5.Ngoga D Mitchell R Kausar J Hodson J Harries A Pall H. Deep brain stimulation improves survival in severe Parkinson’s disease.J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2014; 85 (https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2012-304715.): 17-22Crossref PubMed Scopus (69) Google Scholar). It has been widely discussed whether improvement of survival is related to ameliorated mobility and axial motor functions, perceived improvement in swallowing ability or reduction in dopaminergic medication and drug-related side effects. DBS could prevent the development of motor complications at a much earlier time-point and before long-term sequelae occur, such as psychosocial limitations and deterioration of quality of life. Given all these factors, we strongly believe that PD patients with motor fluctuations should not be treated as nonurgent but interdisciplinary teams of neurologists and neurosurgeons should carefully balance the risk of nosocomial COVID-19 infection against the long-term survival benefits. Conflict of Interest: None for all authors. Dr. Bara developed the idea and wrote the manuscript. Prof. Maciaczyk supervised the work and performed the revisions. Both authors approved the final manuscript.

326P Management of diffuse large B cell lymphomas in the COVID-19 era

Patients with haematologic malignancies, including diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL), have the highest COVID-19 severity and mortality. It is thus important to balance minimising nosocomial COVID-19 transmission with treatment of aggressive DLBCL. At the National Cancer Centre Singapore (NCCS), we implemented these changes: 1. Reduce outpatient visits for patients on surveillance through telemedicine consultations 2. Low threshold for prophylactic granulocyte stimulating factors (GCSF) to reduce febrile neutropenia 3. Low threshold for antimicrobial prophylaxis 4. Subcutaneous instead of intravenous rituximab to reduce “chair time” in suitable patients 5. Outpatient chemotherapy where possible (including for rituximab with dose-adjusted etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide; DA R-EPOCH for double/triple hit lymphomas) 6. Central Nervous System International Prognostic Index (CNS-IPI) to determine high risk patients requiring CNS prophylaxis; delay CNS prophylaxis with intravenous methotrexate (MTX) to later cycles We then reviewed the data to see if these outcomes had been achieved. Data from DLBCL patients between 1 March to 30 April 2019 and the same period in 2020 were reviewed retrospectively and compared. Statistical analysis was performed using the chi-square test (Stata version 16.0, StataCorp, Texas, USA). There was no nosocomial COVID-19 infection. Inpatient admissions and outpatient visits showed numerical decrease, with significant reduction in surveillance visits (p<0.001). Patients still received appropriate curative treatment. CNS prophylaxis was given when indicated; MTX was given intrathecally during staging lumbar puncture and intravenously later. Most on treatment received GCSF as primary prophylaxis. All who received R-EPOCH also received antimicrobial prophylaxis. There was no difference in number of patients receiving radiation or palliative care. In- and outpatient visits were successfully reduced with no compromise to treatment and supportive care, with no nosocomial transmission of COVID-19. With no end from the pandemic in sight, this strategy for the management of DLBCL is useful in the “new normal” and for future pandemics of similar nature.

Managing patient flows in radiation oncology during the COVID-19 pandemic

PurposeThe described work aimed to avoid cancellations of indispensable treatments by implementing active patient flow management practices and optimizing infrastructure utilization in the radiation oncology department of a large university hospital and regional COVID-19 treatment center close to the first German SARS-CoV‑2 hotspot region Heinsberg in order to prevent nosocomial infections in patients and personnel during the pandemic.Patients and methodsThe study comprised year-to-date intervention analyses of in- and outpatient key procedures, machine occupancy, and no-show rates in calendar weeks 12 to 19 of 2019 and 2020 to evaluate effects of active patient flow management while monitoring nosocomial COVID-19 infections.ResultsActive patient flow management helped to maintain first-visit appointment compliance above 85.5%. A slight appointment reduction of 10.3% daily (p = 0.004) could still significantly increase downstream planning CT scheduling (p = 0.00001) and performance (p = 0.0001), resulting in an absolute 20.1% (p = 0.009) increment of CT performance while avoiding overbooking practices. Daily treatment start was significantly increased by an absolute value of 18.5% (p = 0.026). Hypofractionation and acceleration were significantly increased (p = 0.0043). Integrating strict testing guidelines, a distancing regimen for staff and patients, hygiene regulations, and precise appointment scheduling, no SARS-CoV‑2 infection in 164 tested radiation oncology service inpatients was observed.ConclusionIn times of reduced medical infrastructure capacities and resources, controlling infrastructural time per patient as well as optimizing facility utilization and personnel workload during treatment evaluation, planning, and irradiation can help to improve appointment compliance and quality management. Avoiding recurrent and preventable exposure to healthcare infrastructure has potential health benefits and might avert cross infections during the pandemic. Active patient flow management in high-risk COVID-19 regions can help Radiation Oncologists to continue and initiate treatments safely, instead of cancelling and deferring indicated therapies.

Management of a Hospital-Wide COVID-19 Outbreak Affecting Patients and Healthcare Workers

To the best of our knowledge, here, we describe the first hospital-wide outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 that occurred in Germany in April 2020. We aim to share our experience in order to facilitate the management of nosocomial COVID-19 outbreaks in healthcare facilities. All patients and hospital workers were screened for SARS-CoV-2 repeatedly. An infection control team on the side was installed. Strict spatial separation of patients and intensified hygiene training of healthcare workers (HCW) were initiated. By the time of reporting, 26 patients and 21 hospital workers were infected with a cluster of cases in the geriatric department. Fourteen patients developed COVID-19 consistent symptoms and five patients with severe pre-existing medical conditions died. The outbreak was successfully contained after intensified infection control measures were implemented and no further cases among patients were detected over a period of 14 days. Strict application of standard infection control measures proved to be successful in the management of nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks.

Article Current Status of Nosocomial COVID-19 Cases in Delivery Facilities in Japan

Background: In Japan, there are more than 2000 maternity facilities that provide delivery services for approximately 860 thousand deliveries per year. More than half of all deliveries are managed in private clinics which medical resources are limited and maternal transport is often required. In such condition, we aimed to identify the characteristics of and measures taken by Japanese medical facilities providing maternity services that have recorded cases of nosocomial infection with SARS-CoV-2, which causes (COVID-19).Methods: A nationwide questionnaire survey about nosocomial COVID-19 was conducted in July 2020. A case-control study was conducted by including medical facilities with (Cases) and without (Control) nosocomial COVID-19.Findings: Responses from 1,418 medical facilities were assessed (65% of all delivery facilities in Japan). Seventy-five COVID-19-positive pregnant women were treated in 48 facilities. Nosocomial infection was reported in 4.1% of the facilities. Nine patients developed a nosocomial infection in the maternity ward or obstetric department. Variables that contributed to nosocomial COVID-19 were chest CT on admission (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval], 4.76 [2.44–9.27]), PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 before delivery (2.27 [1.21–4.25]), transfer of pregnant women with fever to another hospital (0.21 [0.06–0.71]), and private clinics (0.17 [0.05–0.60]).Interpretation: Nosocomial infection is likely to occur in large hospitals that treat a higher number of patients than private clinics do. Nosocomial infection can occur even in medical facilities performing COVID-19 screening tests, such as chest CT and PCR test.Funding Statement: Nationwide survey associated with COVID-19 infection, The Japan Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (JAOG).Declaration of Interests: The authors declare no competing interests.Ethics Approval Statement: This study was approved by the JAOG (No. 80, July 1st, 2020). This investigation was conducted according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent was not obtained from patients or their families because this study was based on the analysis of facility forms, and the patient records/information was anonymized prior to the analysis.

Impact of COVID-19 on Outcomes and Productivity in a Gynecologic Oncology and Minimally Invasive Surgery Practice

Study ObjectiveTo determine the impact of COVID-19 on patients undergoing surgery.DesignRetrospective review.SettingCommunity hospital and ambulatory practice in New York near the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic.Patients or ParticipantsSurgical volumes were reviewed for years 2019-2020.InterventionsSeventy-three charts were assessed for COVID-19 related outcomes during a 14-week period, beginning February 17th, 2020.Measurements and Main ResultsDuring the study period, gynecologic oncology and minimally invasive surgery activity decreased by 50%. This resulted in economic and clinical disruption. Other surgical divisions showed similar case decreases (34 – 64%) except for otolaryngology which increased by 48%.Seventy-one surgeries were completed in our practice during the study period. Elective cases were restricted on March 7th. Afterward, indications for surgery were malignancy (43.2%), rule out malignancy (27.0%), heavy bleeding (21.6%), and pain (8.1%). All patients were asymptomatic for COVID-19 associated symptoms during preoperative evaluations.Mandatory day-of-surgery COVID-19 PCR testing commenced on April 6th. Prior to this, 49 surgeries were completed. Afterward, 4 of the remaining 21 cases (18%) were cancelled due to positive testing. Of these, 3 tested positive on day of surgery, 1 self-tested positive due to community exposure. All 4 patients remained asymptomatic.Of the 71 patients, 83% were discharged on the same day or on postoperative day one (POD). Postoperatively, 6 patients reported mild COVID-19 symptoms (cough, fever, shortness of breath). Of these, 1 patient tested negative and 5 were not tested. Additionally, 1 patient tested positive remote from surgery (POD #30). Surgeons tested negative for COVID-19 antibodies, and all office staff were asymptomatic.ConclusionAsymptomatic COVID-19 patients were encountered in the preoperative setting. No symptomatic cases of nosocomial COVID-19 infection were identified. Clinical care and surgery appear safe provided there is appropriate utilization of personal protective equipment (PPE). Gynecologic surgical services may be safely performed during a pandemic with appropriate PPE and safety measures.

Risk factors of SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare workers: a retrospective study of a nosocomial outbreak

BackgroundHealthcare workers (HCWs) are at the forefront of fighting against the COVID-19 pandemic. However, they are at high risk of acquiring the pathogen from infected patients and transmitting to other HCWs. We aimed to investigate risk factors for nosocomial COVID-19 infection among HCWs in a non-COVID-19 hospital yard. MethodsRetrospective data collection on demographics, lifestyles, contact status with infected subjects for 118 HCWs (including 12 COVID-19 HCWs) at Union Hospital of Wuhan, China. Sleep quality and working pressure were evaluated by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and The Nurse Stress Index (NSI), respectively. The follow-up duration was from Dec 25, 2019, to Feb 15, 2020. ResultsA high proportion of COVID-19 HCWs had engaged in night shift-work (75.0% vs. 40.6%) and felt working under pressure (66.7% vs. 32.1%) than uninfected HCWs. SARS-CoV-2 infected HCWs had significantly higher scores of PSQI and NSI than uninfected HCWs (P < 0.001). Specifically, scores of 5 factors (sleep quality, sleep time, sleep efficiency, sleep disorder, and daytime dysfunction) in PSQI were higher among infected HCWs. For NSI, its 5 subscales (nursing profession and work, workload and time allocation, working environment and resources, patient care, management and interpersonal relations) were all higher in infected than uninfected nurse. Furthermore, total scores of PSQI (HR = 2.97, 95%CI = 1.86−4.76; P <0.001) and NSI (HR = 4.67, 95%CI = 1.42−15.45; P = 0.011) were both positively associated with the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. ConclusionOur analysis shows that poor sleep quality and higher working pressure may increase the risk of nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCWs.