Emergency preparedness: What is the future?

Emergency preparedness programs have evolved over the last several decades as communities have responded to natural, intentional, and accidental disasters. This evolution has resulted in a comprehensive all-hazards approach centered around 4 fundamental phases spanning the entire disaster life cycle: mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. Increasing frequency of outbreaks and epidemics of emerging and reemerging infectious diseases in the last decade has emphasized the significance of healthcare emergency preparedness programs, but the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has tested healthcare facilities’ emergency plans and exposed vulnerabilities in healthcare emergency preparedness on a scale unexperienced in recent history. We review the 4 phases of emergency management and explore the lessons to be learned from recent events in enhancing health systems capabilities and capacities to mitigate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from biological threats or events, whether it be a pandemic or a single case of an unknown infectious disease. A recurring cycle of assessing, planning, training, exercising, and revising is vital to maintaining healthcare system preparedness, even in absence of an immediate, high probability threat. Healthcare epidemiologists and infection preventionists must play a pivotal role in incorporating lessons learned from the pandemic into emergency preparedness programs and building more robust preparedness plans.

Assessing severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) preparedness in US community hospitals: A forgotten entity

We performed a cross-sectional survey of infection preventionists in 60 US community hospitals between April 22 and May 8, 2020. Several differences in hospital preparedness for SARS-CoV-2 emerged with respect to personal protective equipment conservation strategies, protocols related to testing, universal masking, and restarting elective procedures.

Infection Preventionist Run Clostridioides difficile Testing Diagnostic Stewardship Protocol- Experience From a Rural Community Hospital

Background: Distinguishing active Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) from asymptomatic colonization remains a challenging task in the era of PCR testing. Inappropriate testing leads to overtesting and overdiagnosis, inadvertent treatment, and isolation in addition to laboratory identified (LabID) events, leading to increased incidence to hospital-onset CDI (HO-CDI). The institution has a nurse-driven C. difficile test ordering protocol, and we noted a significant increase in the HO-CDI incidence in 2017 due to inappropriate testing, with rates as high as 0.94 per 1,000 patient days. Methods: In September 2017, a multidisciplinary team reviewed and initiated algorithm-based testing with mandatory audit and review by infection preventionists (IPs) under the guidance of an ID physician of all ordered tests. They reviewed the adequacy and legitimacy of order for multiple parameters, including minimum 3 loose stools in 24 hours, use of laxatives in last 24 hours, consistency of the sample, presence of at least 1 clinical parameters (ie, fever, abdominal pain, leukocytosis, sepsis, or septic shock), recent or concomitant antibiotic use, recent PCR testing in the last 14 days, and chart review for medical and/or surgical history. The IPs served as the gatekeepers to testing and rejected the samples that were deemed inappropriate. Ambiguous cases were discussed with the ID specialist. On the microscope lab side, all specimens sent were batched to be run twice a day at 8:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m., and testing was performed only on the samples cleared by infection preventionists. Results: The number of PCR tests completed in the comparison quarter of 2016 was 220, which decreased to 157 tests in 2017 with a reduction of 28%. After a full year of implementation of the diagnostic stewardship protocol, the number of completed PCR tests decreased to 626 from 940 PCR tests in 2016, with an overall 34% decrease in testing. In the year following the implementation of diagnostic stewardship, HO-CDI decreased from 60 events in 2017 to 43 events in 2018, with a reduction of 28%. Subsequently, HO-CDI further decreased in 2019 from 43 to 28, with a reduction of 35%. Since the implementation of the project in 2017, HO-CDIs have decreased by 54% overall. The reduction in 314 C. difficile PCR tests in the first year led to a savings of $8,300 in laboratory testing supplies. The reduction of HO CDI by 17 led to cost avoidance of $293,420. Conclusions: Our experience shows that the IP-run diagnostic stewardship program was highly successful in streamlining testing, with cost savings on several fronts.Funding: NoneDisclosures: NoneDisclosures:Commercial Company : If I am presenting research funded by a commercial company, the information presented will be based on generally accepted scientific principals and methods, and will not promote the commercial interest of the funding company.DisagreeRaghavendra Tirupathi