Approaches to healthcare personnel exemption requests from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination: Results of a national survey

OBJECTIVE: Although a growing number of healthcare facilities are implementing healthcare personnel (HCP) coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination requirements, vaccine exemption request management as a part of such programs is not well described. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS: Infectious disease (ID) physician members of the Emerging Infections Network with infection prevention or hospital epidemiology responsibilities. METHODS: Eligible persons were sent a web-based survey focused on hospital plans and practices around exemption allowances from HCP COVID-19 vaccine requirements. RESULTS: Of the 695 ID physicians surveyed, 263 (38%) responded. Overall, 160 respondent institutions (92%) allowed medical exemptions, whereas 132 (76%) allowed religious exemptions. In contrast, only 14% (n = 24) allowed deeply held personal belief exemptions. The types of medical exemptions allowed varied considerably across facilities, with allergic reactions to the vaccine or its components accepted by 145 facilities (84%). For selected scenarios commonly used as the basis for religious and deeply held personal belief exemption requests, 144 institutions (83%) would not approve exemptions focused on concerns regarding right of consent or violations of freedom of personal choice, and 140 institutions (81%) would not approve exemptions focused on introducing foreign substances into one\u27s body or the sanctity of the body. Most respondents noted plans for additional infection prevention interventions for HCP who received an exemption for COVID-19 vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Although many respondent institutions allowed exemptions from HCP COVID-19 vaccination requirements, the types of exemptions allowed and how the exemption programs were structured varied widely

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination preparedness policies in US hospitals

We surveyed infectious disease specialists about early coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination preparedness. Almost all responding institutions rated their facility\u27s preparedness plan as either excellent or adequate. Vaccine hesitancy and concern about adverse reactions were the most commonly anticipated barriers to COVID-19 vaccination. Only 60% believed that COVID-19 vaccination should be mandatory

Perceptions and behaviours of infectious diseases physicians when managing urinary tract infections due to MDR organisms

Objectives The objective of this study was to attain a better understanding of infectious diseases (ID) physicians' experience with MDR organism (MDRO) urinary tract infections (UTIs) by means of a survey on disease perception, diagnostic management and treatment preferences. Methods A nine-question survey was developed and distributed to members of the North American Emerging Infections Network (EIN) in September 2013. Results Seven hundred and fourteen out of 1461 EIN members responded to the survey (49%). The responses of 603 responders were studied. Most providers perceived an increase in the incidence of MDRO UTIs over the past 3 years (75% of adult ID responders and 63% of paediatric ID responders). One hundred and thirty-four (22%) responders prefer intravenous over oral administration of antimicrobials when both are available, 171 (28%) prefer longer durations of therapy when comparing an MDRO with a susceptible isolate of the same species and 142 (24%) order a repeat urine culture as ‘proof of cure' after treating an MDRO UTI. Nevertheless, 530 (88%) responders perceived MDRO UTIs to be of similar severity as non-MDRO UTIs. Fifty-five percent of providers prescribed fosfomycin for MDRO UTI at least once; the most common prescribing pattern (among a wide spectrum of approaches) was a single dose (16%). Conclusions Future studies on MDRO UTIs should clarify the role of resistance in patient outcomes and the comparative efficacy of different antimicrobials. Of particular interest is fosfomycin, which is unrelated to other antibiotic classes and may take a more prominent role in treating MDRO cystiti

Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy practices among adult infectious disease physicians

Objective. To identify current outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapy practice patterns and complications. Methods. We administered an 11-question survey to adult infectious disease physicians participating in the Emerging Infections Network (EIN), a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-sponsored sentinel event surveillance network in North America. The survey was distributed electronically or via facsimile in November and December 2012. Respondent demographic characteristics were obtained from EIN enrollment data. Results. Overall, 555 (44.6%) of EIN members responded to the survey, with 450 (81%) indicating that they treated 1 or more patients with outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) during an average month. Infectious diseases consultation was reported to be required for a patient to be discharged with OPAT by 99 respondents (22%). Inpatient (282 [63%] of 449) and outpatient (232 [52%] of 449) infectious diseases physicians were frequently identified as being responsible for monitoring laboratory results. Only 26% (118 of 448) had dedicated OPAT teams at their clinical site. Few infectious diseases physicians have systems to track errors, adverse events, or "near misses" associated with OPAT (97 [22%] of 449). OPAT-associated complications were perceived to be rare. Among respondents, 80% reported line occlusion or clotting as the most common complication (occurring in 6% of patients or more), followed by nephrotoxicity and rash (each reported by 61%). Weekly laboratory monitoring of patients who received vancomycin was reported by 77% of respondents (343 of 445), whereas 19% of respondents (84 of 445) reported twice weekly laboratory monitoring for these patients. Conclusions. Although use of OPAT is common, there is significant variation in practice patterns. More uniform OPAT practices may enhance patient safety

Reported variability in healthcare facility policies regarding healthcare personnel working while experiencing influenza-like illnesses: An emerging infections network survey

BACKGROUND: Presenteeism, or working while ill, by healthcare personnel (HCP) experiencing influenza-like illness (ILI) puts patients and coworkers at risk. However, hospital policies and practices may not consistently facilitate HCP staying home when ill. OBJECTIVE AND METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods survey in March 2018 of Emerging Infections Network infectious diseases physicians, describing institutional experiences with and policies for HCP working with ILI. RESULTS: Of 715 physicians, 367 (51%) responded. Of 367, 135 (37%) were unaware of institutional policies. Of the remaining 232 respondents, 206 (89%) reported institutional policies regarding work restrictions for HCP with influenza or ILI, but only 145 (63%) said these were communicated at least annually. More than half of respondents (124, 53%) reported that adherence to work restrictions was not monitored or enforced. Work restrictions were most often not perceived to be enforced for physicians-in-training and attending physicians. Nearly all (223, 96%) reported that their facility tracked laboratory-confirmed influenza (LCI) in patients; 85 (37%) reported tracking ILI. For employees, 109 (47%) reported tracking of LCI and 53 (23%) reported tracking ILI. For independent physicians, not employed by the facility, 30 (13%) reported tracking LCI and 11 (5%) ILI. CONCLUSION: More than one-third of respondents were unaware of whether their institutions had policies to prevent HCP with ILI from working; among those with knowledge of institutional policies, dissemination, monitoring, and enforcement of these policies was highly variable. Improving communication about work-restriction policies, as well as monitoring and enforcement, may help prevent the spread of infections from HCP to patients

Microstructure of lateral epitaxial overgrown InAs on (100) GaAs substrates

This material is presented to ensure timely dissemination of scholarly and technical work. Copyright and all rights therein are retained by authors or by other copyright holders. All persons copying this information are expected to adhere to the terms and constraints invoked by each author's copyright. In most cases, these works may not be reposted without the explicit permission of the copyright holder

Transport properties across high-angle bicrystals of melt-textured YBa2Cu3O6+x

This material is presented to ensure timely dissemination of scholarly and technical work. Copyright and all rights therein are retained by authors or by other copyright holders. All persons copying this information are expected to adhere to the terms and constraints invoked by each author's copyright. In most cases, these works may not be reposted without the explicit permission of the copyright holder

Approaches to healthcare personnel exemption requests from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination: Results of a national survey

ObjectiveAlthough a growing number of healthcare facilities are implementing healthcare personnel (HCP) coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination requirements, vaccine exemption request management as a part of such programs is not well described.DesignCross-sectional survey.ParticipantsInfectious disease (ID) physician members of the Emerging Infections Network with infection prevention or hospital epidemiology responsibilities.MethodsEligible persons were sent a web-based survey focused on hospital plans and practices around exemption allowances from HCP COVID-19 vaccine requirements.ResultsOf the 695 ID physicians surveyed, 263 (38%) responded. Overall, 160 respondent institutions (92%) allowed medical exemptions, whereas 132 (76%) allowed religious exemptions. In contrast, only 14% (n = 24) allowed deeply held personal belief exemptions. The types of medical exemptions allowed varied considerably across facilities, with allergic reactions to the vaccine or its components accepted by 145 facilities (84%). For selected scenarios commonly used as the basis for religious and deeply held personal belief exemption requests, 144 institutions (83%) would not approve exemptions focused on concerns regarding right of consent or violations of freedom of personal choice, and 140 institutions (81%) would not approve exemptions focused on introducing foreign substances into one's body or the sanctity of the body. Most respondents noted plans for additional infection prevention interventions for HCP who received an exemption for COVID-19 vaccination.ConclusionsAlthough many respondent institutions allowed exemptions from HCP COVID-19 vaccination requirements, the types of exemptions allowed and how the exemption programs were structured varied widely