The use of antimicrobials in animals for growth promotion and infection prevention significantly contributes to the development of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), a growing public health threat. While the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations (UN) and the European Union (EU) have taken steps towards reducing and restricting the use of antimicrobials in animals, initiatives are insufficient in developing countries where the demands for food animals continue to rise over the years. The inter-sectoral acknowledgment of inextricable link between animal health, human health and the environment (One Health approach) is critical. Concerted and collaborative efforts among all the stakeholders are essential to deal with this complex problem of resistance.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: An effective and efficient protocol for delirium identification is needed to improve health outcomes for older adults and reduce healthcare costs. This study describes the barriers and facilitators related to the implementation of the ultra-brief confusion assessment method (UB-CAM), a rapid two-step delirium identification protocol (ultra-brief screen, followed by CAM in positives), field tested with hospitalized older adults (70+). DESIGN: A qualitative descriptive design using observational data collection and brief semi-structured interviews. SETTINGS: An urban academic medical center and a community teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Participants included 50 physician hospitalists, 189 registered nurses, and 83 nursing assistants (NAs). MEASUREMENTS: Field researchers guided by a modified multi-level implementation framework, collected observational data as participants administered the UB-CAM (n = 767). Thematic analysis was conducted on five observational categories: structural, organizational, patient, clinician, and innovation. Field notes and brief semi-structured interviews (n = 231) with clinicians, explored the utility, acceptability, and feasibility of the protocol, and supplemented the observations. RESULTS: The UB-CAM was generally positively received by all three clinician types. Six themes describe barriers and/or facilitators to implementing the UB-CAM: (1) physical setting and milieu; (2) practice environment; (3) integrating into role; (4) adaptive techniques; (5) patient responses; and (6) systematic assessment. The composition and interaction of the six themes determined if the theme was expressed as a barrier or facilitator, affirming the importance of context when implementing system-level delirium screening. CONCLUSION: This is one of the first studies to test a two-step process for delirium identification, and to involve NAs in screening, and the findings demonstrate overall support from clinicians for delirium identification, and describe the need for a multifaceted, contextualized, and systemic approach to implementation and evaluation of delirium screening.

Background The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether boosting previously infected or vaccinated healthcare personnel with a vaccine developed for an earlier variant of SARS-CoV-2 protects against the Omicron variant. Methods Employees of Cleveland Clinic previously infected with or vaccinated against COVID-19, and working in Ohio the day the Omicron variant was declared a variant of concern, were included. The cumulative incidence of COVID-19 was examined over two months during an Omicron variant surge. Protection provided by boosting (analyzed as a time-dependent covariate) was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards regression. Analyses were adjusted for time since proximate SARS-CoV-2 exposure as a time-dependent covariate. Results Among 39 766 employees, 8037 (20%) previously infected and the remaining previously vaccinated, COVID-19 occurred in 6230 (16%) during the study. Risk of COVID-19 increased with time since proximate SARS-CoV-2 exposure, and boosting protected those >6 months since prior infection or vaccination. In multivariable analysis, boosting was independently associated with lower risk of COVID-19 among those vaccinated but not previously infected (HR, .43; 95% CI, .41-.46) as well as those previously infected (HR, .66; 95% CI, .58-.76). Among those previously infected, receiving 2 compared to 1 dose of vaccine was associated with higher risk of COVID-19 (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.21-1.97). Conclusions Administering a COVID-19 vaccine not designed for the Omicron variant, >6 months after prior infection or vaccination, protects against Omicron variant infection in those previously infected or vaccinated. There is no evidence of an advantage to administering more than 1 dose of vaccine to previously infected persons.

No abstract