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
IMPORTANCE Sepsis and septic shock are common and, at times, fatal in pediatrics. Blood cultures are often obtained when clinicians suspect sepsis, yet are low-yield with a false-positive rate up to 50%. OBJECTIVES To determine whether a novel, 2-part, clinical practice guideline could decrease the rates of total blood cultures and cultures collected from central venous catheters in critically ill children and to examine the effect of the guideline on patient outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A retrospective cohort study was performed to determine the effect of a new clinical practice guideline on blood culture practices in a 36-bed, combined medical/surgical pediatric intensive care unit of an urban, academic, tertiary care center from April 1, 2013, to March 31, 2015. All patients admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit with length of stay of 4 hours or more were evaluated (4560 patient visits: 2204 preintervention, 2356 postintervention visits). INTERVENTIONS Two documents were developed: (1) fever/sepsis screening checklist and (2) blood culture decision algorithm. Clinicians consulted these documents when considering ordering blood cultures and for guidance about the culture source. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Primary outcome was the total number of blood cultures collected per 100 patient-days. RESULTS Of the 2204 children evaluated before the intervention, 1215 were male (55.1%); median (interquartile range) age was 5 (1-13) years. Postintervention analysis included 2356 children; 1262 were male (53.6%) and median (interquartile range) age was 6 (1-13) years. A total of 1807 blood cultures were drawn before the intervention during 11 196 patient-days; 984 cultures were drawn after the intervention during 11 204 patient-days (incidence rate, 16.1 vs 8.8 cultures per 100 patient-days). There was a 46.0% reduction after the intervention in the blood culture collection rate (incidence rate ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.50-0.59). After the intervention, there was an immediate 25.0% reduction in the rate of cultures per 100 patient-days (95% CI, 4.2%-39.7%; P = .02) and a sustained 6.6% (95% CI, 4.7%-8.4%; P < .001) monthly decrease in the rate of cultures per 100 patient-days. Significantly fewer cultures were collected from central venous catheters after vs before the intervention (389 [39.5%] vs 1321 [73.1%]; P < .001). Rates of episodes defined as suspected infection and suspected septic shock decreased significantly after the intervention, but patients meeting these criteria underwent cultures at unchanged frequencies before vs after the intervention (52.1% vs 47.0%, P = .09, compared with 56.7% vs 55.0%, P = .75). In-hospital mortality (45 [2.0] vs 37 [1.6]; P = .23) and hospital readmissions (107 [4.9] vs 103 [4.4]; P = .42) were unchanged after the intervention. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE A systematic approach to blood cultures decreased the total number of cultures and central venous catheter cultures, without an increase in rates of mortality, readmission, or episodes of suspected infection and ...
IMPORTANCE Acute flaccid myelitis (AFM) is an emerging poliolike illness of children whose clinical spectrum and associated pathogens are only partially described. The case definition is intentionally encompassing for epidemiologic surveillance to capture all potential AFM cases. Defining a restrictive, homogenous subpopulation may aid our understanding of this emerging disease. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the extent to which the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) case definition of AFM incorporates possible alternative diagnoses and to assess the plausibility of a case definition that enriches the biological homogeneity of AFM for inclusion in research studies. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Retrospective case analysis of children younger than 18 years diagnosed as having AFM between 2012 and 2016 using the CDC case definition. Group 1 included patients recruited from the United States and Canada based on the CDC case definition of AFM. Group 2 included patients referred to the Johns Hopkins Transverse Myelitis Center for evaluation of suspected AFM. Patients' records and imaging data were critically reviewed by 3 neurologists to identify those cases with definable alternative diagnoses, and the remaining patients were categorized as having restrictively defined AFM (rAFM). Clinical characteristics were compared between patients with rAFM (cases) and those with alternative diagnoses, and a case description distinguishing these AFM groups was identified. Interrater reliability of this description was confirmed for a subset of cases by a fourth neurologist. Data were analyzed between May 2017 and November 2018. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Proportion of patients with possible alternative diagnosis. RESULTS Of the 45 patients who met the CDC AFM case definition and were included, the mean age was 6.1 years; 27 were boys (60%); and 37 were white (82%), 3 were Asian (7%), 1 was Hispanic (2%), and 4 were mixed race/ethnicity (9%). Of the included patients, 34 were classified as having rAFM, and 11 had alternate diagnoses (including transverse myelitis, other demyelinating syndromes, spinal cord stroke, Guillain-Barre syndrome, Chiari I myelopathy, and meningitis). Factors differing between groups were primarily asymmetry of weakness, lower motor neuron signs, preceding viral syndrome, symptoms evolving over hours to days, absence of sensory deficits, and magnetic resonance imaging findings. A case description was able to reliably define the rAFM group. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE We present an approach for defining a homogeneous research population that may more accurately reflect the pathogenesis of the prototypical poliomyelitis-like subgroup of AFM. The definition of rAFM forms a blueprint for inclusion criteria in future research efforts, but more work is required for refinement and external validation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.