Evaluation of a Virtual Training to Enhance Public Health Capacity for COVID-19 Infection Prevention and Control in Nursing Homes

CONTEXT

Between April 2020 and May 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) awarded more than $40 billion to health departments nationwide for COVID-19 prevention and response activities. One of the identified priorities for this investment was improving infection prevention and control (IPC) in nursing homes.

PROGRAM

CDC developed a virtual course to train new and less experienced public health staff in core healthcare IPC principles and in the application of CDC COVID-19 healthcare IPC guidance for nursing homes.

IMPLEMENTATION

From October 2020 to August 2021, the CDC led training sessions for 12 cohorts of public health staff using pretraining reading materials, case-based scenarios, didactic presentations, peer-learning opportunities, and subject matter expert-led discussions. Multiple electronic assessments were distributed to learners over time to measure changes in self-reported knowledge and confidence and to collect feedback on the course. Participating public health programs were also assessed to measure overall course impact.

EVALUATION

Among 182 enrolled learners, 94% completed the training. Most learners were infection preventionists (42%) or epidemiologists (38%), had less than 1 year of experience in their health department role (75%), and had less than 1 year of subject matter experience (54%). After training, learners reported increased knowledge and confidence in applying the CDC COVID-19 healthcare IPC guidance for nursing homes (≥81%) with the greatest increase in performing COVID-19 IPC consultations and assessments (87%). The majority of participating programs agreed that the course provided an overall benefit (88%) and reduced training burden (72%).

DISCUSSION

The CDC's virtual course was effective in increasing public health capacity for COVID-19 healthcare IPC in nursing homes and provides a possible model to increase IPC capacity for other infectious diseases and other healthcare settings. Future virtual healthcare IPC courses could be enhanced by tailoring materials to health department needs, reinforcing training through applied learning experiences, and supporting mechanisms to retain trained staff.

Remote Infection Control Assessments of U.S. Nursing Homes During the COVID-19 Pandemic, April to June 2020

Background

Nursing homes (NHs) provide care in a congregate setting for residents at high risk of severe outcomes from SARS-CoV-2 infection. In spring 2020, NHs were implementing new guidance to minimize SARS-CoV-2 spread among residents and staff.

Objective

To assess whether telephone and video-based infection control assessment and response (TeleICAR) strategies could efficiently assess NH preparedness and help resolve gaps.

Design

We incorporated Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 guidance for NH into an assessment tool covering 6 domains: visitor restrictions; health care personnel COVID-19 training; resident education, monitoring, screening, and cohorting; personal protective equipment supply; core infection prevention and control (IPC); and communication to public health. We performed TeleICAR consultations on behalf of health departments. Adherence to each element was documented and recommendations provided to the facility.

Setting and Participants

Health department–referred NHs that agreed to TeleICAR consultation.

Methods

We assessed overall numbers and proportions of NH that had not implemented each infection control element (gap) and proportion of NH that reported making ≥1 change in practice following the assessment.

Results

During April 13 to June 12, 2020, we completed TeleICAR consultations in 629 NHs across 19 states. Overall, 524 (83%) had ≥1 implementation gap identified; the median number of gaps was 2 (interquartile range: 1-4). The domains with the greatest number of facilities with gaps were core IPC practices (428/625; 68%) and COVID-19 education, monitoring, screening, and cohorting of residents (291/620; 47%).

Conclusions and Implications

TeleICAR was an alternative to onsite infection control assessments that enabled public health to efficiently reach NHs across the United States early in the COVID-19 pandemic. Assessments identified widespread gaps in core IPC practices that put residents and staff at risk of infection. TeleICAR is an important strategy that leverages infection control expertise and can be useful in future efforts to improve NH IPC.

1891. Invasive Group A Streptococcus Infections Among Residents of Multiple Nursing Homes—Denver, Colorado, 2017–2018

Background

Older adults residing in nursing homes (NH) are at increased risk for invasive group A Streptococcus (GAS) infections due to advanced age, presence of wounds, and comorbidities; approximately one-third of infected patients die. Beginning in 2015, increasing numbers of GAS infections in NH residents and several NH clusters were reported from the Denver metropolitan area. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) and CDC investigated to characterize cases and assess if outbreaks resulted from interfacility transmission.

Methods

We reviewed data from Active Bacterial Core surveillance (ABCs) in the 5-county Denver area from January 2017 to June 2018. We defined a case as isolation of GAS from a normally sterile site in an NH resident. GAS isolates underwent whole-genome sequencing (WGS) at CDC’s Streptococcus Laboratory to determine emm types for genotyping. Among isolates with the same emm type, pairwise single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) distances were calculated using Nucmer software. In October 2018, a CDPHE-CDC team assessed infection control at NHs with cases of the most common emm type.

Results

Over 18 months, among >100 NHs in the Denver area, ≥1 GAS case was identified in 29 NHs, with 6 having ≥3 cases. During this period, 68 cases in NH residents were identified. WGS identified 17 emm types among isolates from these cases; most common was emm11.10 (34%, n = 22), a rare subtype in ABCs. All emm11.10 isolates had nearly identical genomes (average pairwise SNP distance: 3.2), and were isolated from 10 NHs, with 2 NHs having ≥ 4 cases. Multiple infection control lapses were noted during site visits to 8 NHs.

Conclusion

Multiple outbreaks due to GAS were noted in 5-county Denver area NHs in 2017–2018. WGS of surveillance isolates identified a rarely seen emm subtype 11.10 from multiple facilities with temporal and genomic clustering suggesting interfacility GAS transmission.

Disclosures

All Authors: No reported Disclosures.

513. Transmission of Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae in a Community-Based, Residential Care Setting: Nevada, 2018

Background

Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase-producing organisms (KPCOs) are often multidrug-resistant, and the KPC resistance determinant can be transmitted between bacteria. KPCOs are associated with healthcare facility exposures; identification in community-based, residential care settings is uncommon. In September 2018, the Washoe County Health District was notified of a KPC-producing Escherichia coli from a group home (GH) resident. We investigated the source of this KPCO and evaluated transmission in the GH.

Methods

A case was defined as detection of KPCO from a GH resident or staff from June 1 to November 30, 2018. Staff included caregivers who provided daily care (including toileting, bathing, feeding) and visiting healthcare workers. Residents and staff were offered KPCO screening to assess colonization status. Exposures were assessed by medical record review and interviews. Genetic relatedness of KPCOs was evaluated by whole-genome sequencing (WGS). Infection prevention and control (IPC) practices were reviewed.

Results

Overall, six cases were identified, including the index, two of seven staff screened and three of six residents screened. Three residents with KPCOs had recent hospitalizations and shared a bathroom in the GH; one overlapped on the same hospital unit as a patient with KPC-producing Klebsiella oxytoca. Staff with KPCOs were caregivers who had extensive contact with residents and their environment and no IPC training. Gaps in hand hygiene and environmental cleaning were observed. Organism was recovered from 4 positive screening tests as well as from blood cultures from the index case; all were KPC-producing E. coli. WGS showed that the five E. coli isolates were closely related, consistent with transmission, and harbored the same KPC variant as the K. oxytoca. No new cases occurred after IPC was improved.

Conclusion

A GH resident likely acquired KPCOs during a recent hospitalization, and extensive transmission among GH residents and staff occurred. Factors contributing to transmission included resident dependence on caregivers for daily care and minimal IPC knowledge among caregivers. Facilities with similar populations should increase IPC training to prevent transmission of resistant pathogens.

Disclosures

All authors: No reported disclosures.

The Role of Wound Care in 2 Group A Streptococcal Outbreaks in a Chicago Skilled Nursing Facility, 2015‒2016

Two consecutive outbreaks of group A Streptococcus (GAS) infections occurred from 2015-2016 among residents of a Chicago skilled nursing facility. Evaluation of wound care practices proved crucial for identifying transmission factors and implementing prevention measures. We demonstrated shedding of GAS on settle plates during care of a colonized wound.

Prolonged and large outbreak of invasive group A Streptococcus disease within a nursing home: repeated intrafacility transmission of a single strain

OBJECTIVES

Multiple invasive group A Streptococcus (GAS) infections were reported to public health by a skilled nursing facility (facility A) in Illinois between May 2014 and August 2016. Cases continued despite interventions including antibiotic prophylaxis for all residents and staff. Two other geographically close facilities reported contemporaneous outbreaks of GAS. We investigated potential reasons for ongoing transmission.

METHODS

We obtained epidemiologic data from chart review of cases and review of facility and public health records from previous investigations into the outbreak. Infection control practices at facility A were observed and evaluated. Whole genome sequencing followed by phylogenetic analysis was performed on available isolates from the three facilities.

RESULTS

From 2014 to 2016, 19 invasive and 60 noninvasive GAS infections were identified at facility A occurring in three clusters. Infection control evaluations during clusters 2 and 3 identified hand hygiene compliance rates of 14% to 25%, appropriate personal protective equipment use in only 33% of observed instances, and deficient wound-care practices. GAS isolates from residents and staff of all three facilities were subtype emm89.0; on phylogenetic analysis, facility A isolates were monophyletic and distinct.

CONCLUSIONS

Inadequate infection control and improper wound-care practices likely led to this 28-month-long outbreak of severe infections in a skilled nursing facility. Whole genome sequencing and phylogenetic analysis suggested that intrafacility transmission of a single highly transmissible GAS strain was responsible for the outbreak in facility A. Integration of genomic epidemiology tools with traditional epidemiology and infection control assessments was helpful in investigation of a facility-wide outbreak.