Consultations with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion revealed patient harms associated with ophthalmic care. Adherence to core infection prevention and control principles, tailored guidance for ophthalmic settings, and compliance with manufacturing and compounding standards could decrease adverse events and patient exposures to contaminated products.

Infections cause substantial morbidity and mortality among patients receiving care in outpatient hemodialysis facilities. We describe comprehensive infection prevention assessments by US public health departments using standardized interview and observation tools. Results demonstrated how facility layouts can undermine infection prevention and that clinical practices often fall short of policies.

Racial and ethnic minority patients are disproportionately affected by healthcare-associated infections (HAIs).Reference Argamany, Delgado and Reveles1–Reference Fortin-Leung and Wiley4 Patients may be at increased risk due to the underlying influence of several factors such as demographics and comorbidities. Studies of patient-level risk factors for specific HAIs have focused on racial and ethnic inequities,Reference Argamany, Delgado and Reveles1–Reference Fortin-Leung and Wiley4 but less is known about other patient-level characteristics that may place patients at greater risk of HAIs during an outbreak or facility-level factors that may place a facility at greater risk of experiencing HAI outbreaks. Additional data are needed beyond what is currently routinely collected in outbreak investigations. Are certain patients more likely to experience harm (eg, increased exposure to pathogens, infection, morbidity, or mortality) if they are in a facility experiencing an HAI outbreak? Are certain facilities (eg, based on populations served, geography, or facility type) more likely to experience HAI outbreaks? Further research is needed to better understand which patient and facility-level factors play a role in differential risk of HAI outbreaks, and collecting these additional data can help elucidate these factors.

BACKGROUND: Beginning in October 2016, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued expanded guidance requiring accrediting organizations and state survey agencies to report serious infection control breaches to relevant state health departments. This project sought to characterize and summarize The Joint Commission's early experiences and findings in applying this guidance to facilities accredited under the ambulatory and office-based surgery programs in 2017. METHODS: Surveyor notes were retrospectively reviewed to identify individual breaches, and then the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Infection Prevention Checklist for Outpatient Settings was used to categorize and code documented breaches. RESULTS: Of 845 ambulatory organizations, 39 (4.6%) had breaches observed during the survey process and reported to health departments. Within these organizations, surveyors documented 356 breaches, representing 52 different breach codes. Common breach domains were sterilization of reusable devices, device reprocessing observation, device reprocessing, disinfection of reusable devices, and infection control program and infrastructure. Eight of the 39 facilities (20.5%) were cited for not performing the minimum level of reprocessing based on the items' intended use, reusing single-use devices, and/or not using aseptic technique to prepare injections. CONCLUSION: The CMS infection control breach reporting requirement has helped highlight some of the challenges faced by ambulatory facilities in providing a safe care environment for their patients. This analysis identified numerous opportunities for improved staff training and competencies as well as leadership oversight and investment in necessary resources. More systematic assessments of infection control practices, extending to both accredited and nonaccredited ambulatory facilities, are needed to inform oversight and prevention efforts.

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.

We describe a large SARS-CoV-2 outbreak involving an acute care hospital emergency department during December 2020 and January 2021, in which 27 healthcare personnel worked while infectious, resulting in multiple opportunities for SARS-CoV-2 transmission to patients and other healthcare personnel. We provide recommendations for improving infection prevention and control.

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 gaps 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.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has highlighted the vulnerability of residents and staff members in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) (1). Although skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) certified by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) have federal COVID-19 reporting requirements, national surveillance data are less readily available for other types of LTCFs, such as assisted living facilities (ALFs) and those providing similar residential care. However, many state and territorial health departments publicly report COVID-19 surveillance data across various types of LTCFs. These data were systematically retrieved from health department websites to characterize COVID-19 cases and deaths in ALF residents and staff members. Limited ALF COVID-19 data were available for 39 states, although reporting varied. By October 15, 2020, among 28,623 ALFs, 6,440 (22%) had at least one COVID-19 case among residents or staff members. Among the states with available data, the proportion of COVID-19 cases that were fatal was 21.2% for ALF residents, 0.3% for ALF staff members, and 2.5% overall for the general population of these states. To prevent the introduction and spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, in their facilities, ALFs should 1) identify a point of contact at the local health department; 2) educate residents, families, and staff members about COVID-19; 3) have a plan for visitor and staff member restrictions; 4) encourage social (physical) distancing and the use of masks, as appropriate; 5) implement recommended infection prevention and control practices and provide access to supplies; 6) rapidly identify and properly respond to suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases in residents and staff members; and 7) conduct surveillance of COVID-19 cases and deaths, facility staffing, and supply information (2).

CONTEXT: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention awarded $85 million to health care-associated infection and antibiotic resistance (HAI/AR) programs in March 2015 as part of Infection Control Assessment and Response (ICAR) activities in the Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity cooperative agreement Domestic Ebola Supplement. PROGRAM: One goal of this funding was to assess and improve program capacity to respond to potential health care outbreaks (eg, HAI clusters). All 55 funded programs (in 49 state and 6 local health departments) participated. IMPLEMENTATION: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention developed guidance and tools for HAI/AR programs to document relevant response capacities, assess policies, and measure progress. HAI/AR programs completed an interim assessment in 2016 and a final progress report in 2017. EVALUATION: During the project period, 78% (n = 43) of the programs developed new investigation tools, 85% (n = 47) trained staff on outbreak response, and 96% (n = 53) of the programs reported hiring staff to assist with outbreak response activities. Staffing and expertise to support HAI outbreak response increased substantially among awardees reporting staffing limitations on the interim assessment, including in domains such as on-site infection control assessment (n = 20; 83%), laboratory capacity (n = 20; 91%), and data management/analytics (n = 14; 67%). By 2017, reporting requirements in 100% of the programs addressed possible HAI/AR outbreaks; 93% (n = 51) also addressed sentinel events such as identification of novel AR threats. More than 90% (n = 50) of programs enhanced capacities for tracking response activities; in 2016, these systems captured 6665 events (range, 3-1379; median = 46). Health departments also reported wide-ranging efforts to engage regulatory, public health, and health care partners to improve HAI/AR outbreak reporting and investigation. DISCUSSION: Broad capacity for responding to HAI/AR outbreaks was enhanced using Ebola ICAR supplemental funding. As response activities expand, health department programs will be challenged to continue building expertise, reporting infrastructure, investigation resources, and effective relations with health care partners.

The Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion (DHQP), within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), provides assistance to health departments and health care facilities investigating potential outbreaks and infection control breaches.1–3 These consultations typically involve assessments regarding potential risk of pathogen transmission and need for patient notification (ie, informing affected individuals about the outbreak or breach).4–6 These assessments can be challenging. The available information might not be sufficient to clearly characterize patient harms and infection risks. Accepted standards regarding patient notification in these situations are lacking. Stakeholder consensus on the best path forward can be difficult to obtain as the expectations of patients, health care providers, health care facilities, and public health do not always align.

OBJECTIVES: To summarize patient notifications resulting from unsafe injection practices by health care personnel in the United States and describe recommended actions for prevention and response. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We examined records of events involving communications to groups of patients, conducted from January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2018, in which bloodborne pathogen testing was recommended or offered because of potential exposure to unsafe injection practices by health care personnel in the United States. Information compiled included: health care setting(s), type of unsafe injection practice(s), number of patients notified, number of outbreak-associated infections, and whether evidence suggesting bloodborne pathogen transmission prompted the notification. We compared these numbers with a similar review conducted from January 1, 2001, through December 31, 2011. RESULTS: From 2012 through 2018, more than 66,748 patients were notified as part of 38 patient notification events. Twenty-one involved exposures in non-hospital settings. Twenty-five involved syringe and/or needle reuse in the context of routine patient care; 11 involved drug tampering by a health care provider. The majority of events (n=25) were prompted by identification of unsafe injection practices alone, absent any documented infections at the time of notification. Outbreak-associated hepatitis B virus and/or hepatitis C virus infections were documented for 11 of the events; 8 involved patient-to-patient transmission, and 3 involved provider-to-patient transmission. CONCLUSIONS: Since 2001, nearly 200,000 patients in the United States were notified about potential exposure to blood-contaminated medications or injection equipment. Facility leadership has an obligation to ensure adherence to safe injection practices and to respond properly if unsafe injection practices are identified.

A surgical heater-cooler unit has been implicated as the source for Mycobacterium chimaera infections among cardiac surgery patients in several countries. We isolated M. chimaera from heater-cooler units and patient infections in the United States. Whole-genome sequencing corroborated a risk for these units acting as a reservoir for this pathogen.

OBJECTIVE: Water exposures in healthcare settings and during healthcare delivery can place patients at risk for infection with water-related organisms and can potentially lead to outbreaks. We aimed to describe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) consultations involving water-related organisms leading to healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. METHODS: We reviewed internal CDC records from January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2017, using water-related terms and organisms, excluding Legionella, to identify consultations that involved potential or confirmed transmission of water-related organisms in healthcare. We determined plausible exposure pathways and routes of transmission when possible. RESULTS: Of 620 consultations during the study period, we identified 134 consultations (21.6%), with 1,380 patients, that involved the investigation of potential water-related HAIs or infection control lapses with the potential for water-related HAIs. Nontuberculous mycobacteria were involved in the greatest number of investigations (n = 40, 29.9%). Most frequently, investigations involved medical products (n = 48, 35.8%), and most of these products were medical devices (n = 40, 83.3%). We identified a variety of plausible water-exposure pathways, including medication preparation near water splash zones and water contamination at the manufacturing sites of medications and medical devices. CONCLUSIONS: Water-related investigations represent a substantial proportion of CDC HAI consultations and likely represent only a fraction of all water-related HAI investigations and outbreaks occurring in US healthcare facilities. Water-related HAI investigations should consider all potential pathways of water exposure. Finally, healthcare facilities should develop and implement water management programs to limit the growth and spread of water-related organisms.

BACKGROUND: To inform development, targeting, and penetration of materials from a national injection safety campaign, an evaluation was conducted to assess provider knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to unsafe injection practices. METHODS: A panel of physicians (n = 370) and nurses (n = 320) were recruited from 8 states to complete an online survey. Questions, using 5-point Likert and Spector scales, addressed acceptability and frequency of unsafe practices (eg, reuse of a syringe on >1 patient). Results were stratified to identify differences among physician specialties and nurse practice locations. RESULTS: Unsafe injection practices were reported by both physicians and nurses across all surveyed physician specialties and nurse practice locations. Twelve percent (12.4%) of physicians and 3% of nurses indicated reuse of syringes for >1 patient occurs in their workplace; nearly 5% of physicians indicated this practice usually or always occurs. A higher proportion of oncologists reported unsafe practices occurring in their workplace. CONCLUSIONS: There is a dangerous minority of providers violating basic standards of care; practice patterns may vary by provider group and specialty. More research is needed to understand how best to identify providers placing patients at risk of infection and modify their behaviors.

Invasive nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) infections may result from a previously unrecognized source of transmission, heater-cooler devices (HCDs) used during cardiac surgery. In July 2015, the Pennsylvania Department of Health notified the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) about a cluster of NTM infections among cardiothoracic surgical patients at 1 hospital. We conducted a case-control study to identify exposures causing infection, examining 11 case-patients and 48 control-patients. Eight (73%) case-patients had a clinical specimen identified as Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC). HCD exposure was associated with increased odds of invasive NTM infection; laboratory testing identified patient isolates and HCD samples as closely related strains of M. chimaera, a MAC species. This investigation confirmed a large US outbreak of invasive MAC infections in a previously unaffected patient population and suggested transmission occurred by aerosolization from HCDs. Recommendations have been issued for enhanced surveillance to identify potential infections associated with HCDs and measures to mitigate transmission risk.

Nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) are opportunistic pathogens that have a strong affinity for healthcare. As illustrated in a report by Baker et al in this issue of Clinical Infectious Diseases, NTM are capable of exploiting myriad pathways to expose and infect patients [1]. NTM occur naturally in the environment and can be found in soil and water, including the potable water systems that supply many US healthcare facilities. There, in hospitals and clinics alike, they find opportunities to take advantage of immunocompromised hosts, breaches in host defenses, and novel technologies including medical devices. | Baker et al describe a bimodal or “2-phase” outbreak of Mycobacterium abscessus. Phase 1 primarily involved pulmonary infections among lung transplant patients. Phase 2 primarily involved patients exposed to heater-cooler devices (HCDs) during open-chest cardiac surgery. The phases were not completely distinct, which added to the challenge of investigating what unfolded as a large outbreak involving multiple modes of transmission. The investigation and comprehensive mitigation measures described in this report offer important lessons regarding transmission and prevention of healthcare-associated NTM.

On May 24, 2016, the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene notified CDC of two cases of Exophiala dermatitidis bloodstream infections among patients with malignancies who had received care from a single physician at an outpatient oncology facility (clinic A). Review of January 1-May 31, 2016 microbiology records identified E. dermatitidis bloodstream infections in two additional patients who also had received care at clinic A. All four patients had implanted vascular access ports and had received intravenous (IV) medications, including a compounded IV flush solution containing saline, heparin, vancomycin, and ceftazidime, compounded and administered at clinic A.

In the spring of 2015, investigators in Switzerland reported a cluster of six patients with invasive infection with Mycobacterium chimaera, a species of nontuberculous mycobacterium ubiquitous in soil and water. The infected patients had undergone open-heart surgery that used contaminated heater-cooler devices during extracorporeal circulation (1). In July 2015, a Pennsylvania hospital also identified a cluster of invasive nontuberculous mycobacterial infections among open-heart surgery patients. Similar to the Swiss report, a field investigation by the Pennsylvania Department of Health, with assistance from CDC, used both epidemiologic and laboratory evidence to identify an association between invasive Mycobacterium avium complex, including M. chimaera, infections and exposure to contaminated Stockert 3T heater-cooler devices, all manufactured by LivaNova PLC (formerly Sorin Group Deutschland GmbH) (2). M. chimaera was described as a distinct species of M. avium complex in 2004 (3). The results of the field investigation prompted notification of approximately 1,300 potentially exposed patients.* Although heater-cooler devices are used to regulate patients' blood temperature during cardiopulmonary bypass through water circuits that are closed, these reports suggest that aerosolized M. chimaera from the devices resulted in the invasive infections (1,2). The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and CDC have issued alerts regarding the need to follow updated manufacturer's instructions for use of the devices, evaluate the devices for contamination, remain vigilant for new infections, and continue to monitor reports from the United States and overseas (2).

During 2013, the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene in Baltimore, MD, USA, received report of 2 Maryland residents whose surgical sites were infected with rapidly growing mycobacteria after cosmetic procedures at a clinic (clinic A) in the Dominican Republic. A multistate investigation was initiated; a probable case was defined as a surgical site infection unresponsive to therapy in a patient who had undergone cosmetic surgery in the Dominican Republic. We identified 21 case-patients in 6 states who had surgery in 1 of 5 Dominican Republic clinics; 13 (62%) had surgery at clinic A. Isolates from 12 (92%) of those patients were culture-positive for Mycobacterium abscessus complex. Of 9 clinic A case-patients with available data, all required therapeutic surgical intervention, 8 (92%) were hospitalized, and 7 (78%) required ≥3 months of antibacterial drug therapy. Healthcare providers should consider infection with rapidly growing mycobacteria in patients who have surgical site infections unresponsive to standard treatment.

On September 17, 2015, the Pennsylvania Department of Health (PADOH) notified CDC of a cluster of three potentially health care-associated mucormycete infections that occurred among solid organ transplant recipients during a 12-month period at hospital A. On September 18, hospital B reported that it had identified an additional transplant recipient with mucormycosis. Hospitals A and B are part of the same health care system and are connected by a pedestrian bridge. PADOH requested CDC's assistance with an on-site investigation, which started on September 22, to identify possible sources of infection and prevent additional infections.

Laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) eye surgery is increasingly common, with approximately 600,000 procedures performed each year in the United States. LASIK eye surgery is typically performed in an outpatient setting and involves the use of a machine-guided laser to reshape the lens of the eye to correct vision irregularities. Clinic A is an ambulatory surgery center that performs this procedure on 1 day each month. On February 5, 2015, the Toledo-Lucas County Health Department (TLCHD) in Ohio was notified of eye infections in two of the six patients who had undergone LASIK procedures at clinic A on January 9, 2015. The two patients experienced eye pain after the procedures and received diagnoses of infection with Mycobacterium chelonae, an environmental organism found in soil and water.

Public health activities to identify and monitor persons at risk for Ebola virus disease in the United States include directing persons at risk to assessment facilities that are prepared to safely evaluate for Ebola virus disease. Although it is unlikely that a person with Ebola virus disease will unexpectedly present to a nonemergency ambulatory care facility, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have provided guidance for this setting that can be summarized as identify, isolate, and inform.

OBJECTIVES: Pharmacy-compounded sterile preparations (P-CSPs) are frequently relied upon in U.S. health care but are increasingly being linked to outbreaks of infections. We provide an updated overview of outbreak burden and characteristics, identify drivers of P-CSP demand, and discuss public health and patient safety lessons learned to help inform prevention. METHODS: Outbreaks of infections linked to contaminated P-CSPs that occurred between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2013, were identified from internal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports, Food and Drug Administration drug safety communications, and published literature. RESULTS: We identified 19 outbreaks linked to P-CSPs, resulting in at least 1000 cases, including deaths. Outbreaks were reported across two-thirds of states, with almost one-half (8/19) involving cases in more than 1 state. Almost one-half of outbreaks were linked to injectable steroids (5/19) and intraocular bevacizumab (3/19). Non-patient-specific compounding originating from nonsterile ingredients and repackaging of already sterile products were the most common practices associated with P-CSP contamination. Breaches in aseptic processing and deficiencies in sterilization procedures or in sterility/endotoxin testing were consistent findings. Hospital outsourcing, preference for variations of commercially available products, commercial drug shortages, and lower prices were drivers of P-CSP demand. CONCLUSIONS: Recognized outbreaks linked to P-CSPs have been most commonly associated with non-patient-specific repackaging and nonsterile to sterile compounding and linked to lack of adherence to sterile compounding standards. Recently enhanced regulatory oversight of compounding may improve adherence to such standards. Additional measures to limit and control these outbreaks include vigilance when outsourcing P-CSPs, scrutiny of drivers for P-CSP demand, as well as early recognition and notification of possible outbreaks.

Unsafe practices are an underestimated contributor to the disease burden of bloodborne viruses. Outbreaks associated with failures in basic infection prevention have been identified in nonhospital settings with increased frequency in the United States during the past 15 years, representing an alarming trend and indicating that the challenge of providing consistently safe care is not always met. As has been the case with most medical specialties, there have been public health investigations by state and local health departments, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have identified some instances of unsafe practices that have placed podiatric medical patients at risk for viral, bacterial, and fungal infections. All health-care providers, including podiatric physicians, must make infection prevention a priority in any setting in which care is delivered.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), CDC, other U.S. government agencies, the World Health Organization (WHO), and international partners are taking multiple steps to respond to the current Ebola virus disease (Ebola) outbreak in West Africa to reduce its toll there and to reduce the chances of international spread. At the same time, CDC and HHS are working to ensure that persons who have a risk factor for exposure to Ebola and who develop symptoms while in the United States are rapidly identified and isolated, and safely receive treatment. HHS and CDC have actively worked with state and local public health authorities and other partners to accelerate health care preparedness to care for persons under investigation (PUI) for Ebola or with confirmed Ebola. This report describes some of these efforts and their impact.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize available information about outbreaks of infections stemming from drug diversion in US health care settings and describe recommended protocols and public health actions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed records at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention related to outbreaks of infections from drug diversion by health care personnel in US health care settings from January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2013. Searches of the medical literature published during the same period were also conducted using PubMed. Information compiled included health care setting(s), infection type(s), specialty of the implicated health care professional, implicated medication(s), mechanism(s) of diversion, number of infected patients, number of patients with potential exposure to blood-borne pathogens, and resolution of the investigation. RESULTS: We identified 6 outbreaks over a 10-year period beginning in 2004; all occurred in hospital settings. Implicated health care professionals included 3 technicians and 3 nurses, one of whom was a nurse anesthetist. The mechanism by which infections were spread was tampering with injectable controlled substances. Two outbreaks involved tampering with opioids administered via patient-controlled analgesia pumps and resulted in gram-negative bacteremia in 34 patients. The remaining 4 outbreaks involved tampering with syringes or vials containing fentanyl; hepatitis C virus infection was transmitted to 84 patients. In each of these outbreaks, the implicated health care professional was infected with hepatitis C virus and served as the source; nearly 30,000 patients were potentially exposed to blood-borne pathogens and targeted for notification advising testing. CONCLUSION: These outbreaks revealed gaps in prevention, detection, and response to drug diversion in US health care facilities. Drug diversion is best prevented by health care facilities having strong narcotics security measures and active monitoring systems. Appropriate response includes assessment of harm to patients, consultation with public health officials when tampering with injectable medication is suspected, and prompt reporting to enforcement agencies.

IMPORTANCE: Liposuction is one of the most common cosmetic surgery procedures in the United States. Tumescent liposuction, in which crystalloid fluids, lidocaine, and epinephrine are infused subcutaneously before cannula-assisted aspiration of fat, can be performed without intravenous or general anesthesia, often at outpatient facilities. However, some of these facilities are not subject to state or federal regulation and may not adhere to appropriate infection control practices. OBJECTIVE: To describe an outbreak of severe group A Streptococcus (GAS) infections among persons undergoing tumescent liposuction at 2 outpatient cosmetic surgery facilities not subject to state or federal regulation. DESIGN: Outbreak investigation (including cohort analysis of at-risk patients), interviews using a standardized questionnaire, medical record review, facility assessment, and laboratory analysis of GAS isolates. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients undergoing liposuction at 2 outpatient facilities, one in Maryland and the other in Pennsylvania, between July 1 and September 14, 2012. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Confirmed invasive GAS infections (isolation of GAS from a normally sterile site or wound of a patient with necrotizing fasciitis or streptococcal toxic shock syndrome), suspected GAS infections (inflamed surgical site and either purulent discharge or fever and chills in a patient with no alternative diagnosis), postsurgical symptoms and patient-reported experiences related to his or her procedure, and emm types, T-antigen types, and antimicrobial susceptibility of GAS isolates. RESULTS: We identified 4 confirmed cases and 9 suspected cases, including 1 death (overall attack rate, 20% [13 of 66]). One instance of likely secondary GAS transmission to a household member occurred. All confirmed case patients had necrotizing fasciitis and had undergone surgical debridement. Procedures linked to illness were performed by a single surgical team that traveled between the 2 locations; 2 team members (1 of whom reported recent cellulitis) were colonized with a GAS strain that was indistinguishable by laboratory analysis of the isolates from the case patients. Facility assessments and patient reports indicated substandard infection control, including errors in equipment sterilization and infection prevention training. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This outbreak of severe GAS infections was likely caused by transmission from colonized health care workers to patients during liposuction procedures. Additional oversight of outpatient cosmetic surgery facilities is needed to assure that they maintain appropriate infection control practices and other patient protections.

In August 2013, the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (MDHMH) was notified of two persons with rapidly growing nontuberculous mycobacterial (RG-NTM) surgical-site infections. Both patients had undergone surgical procedures as medical tourists at the same private surgical clinic (clinic A) in the Dominican Republic the previous month. Within 7 days of returning to the United States, both sought care for symptoms that included surgical wound abscesses, clear fluid drainage, pain, and fever. Initial antibiotic therapy was ineffective. Material collected from both patients' wounds grew Mycobacterium abscessus exhibiting a high degree of antibiotic resistance characteristic of this organism.

BACKGROUND: Assisted living facilities (ALFs) provide housing and care to persons unable to live independently, and who often have increasing medical needs. Disease outbreaks illustrate challenges of maintaining adequate resident protections in these facilities. OBJECTIVES: Describe current state laws on assisted living admissions criteria, medical oversight, medication administration, vaccination requirements, and standards for infection control training. METHODS: We abstracted laws and regulations governing assisted living facilities for the 50 states using a structured abstraction tool. Selected characteristics were compared according to the time period in which the regulation took effect. Selected state health departments were queried regarding outbreaks identified in assisted living facilities. RESULTS: Of the 50 states, 84% specify health-based admissions criteria to assisted living facilities; 60% require licensed health care professionals to oversee medical care; 88% specifically allow subcontracting with outside entities to provide routine medical services onsite; 64% address medication administration by assisted living facility staff; 54% specify requirements for some form of initial infection control training for all staff; 50% require reporting of disease outbreaks to the health department; 18% specify requirements to offer or require vaccines to staff; 30% specify requirements to offer or require vaccines to residents. Twelve states identified approximately 1600 outbreaks from 2010 to 2013, with influenza or norovirus infections predominating. CONCLUSIONS: There is wide variation in how assisted living facilities are regulated in the United States. States may wish to consider regulatory changes that ensure safe health care delivery, and minimize risks of infections, outbreaks of disease, and other forms of harm among assisted living residents.

BACKGROUND: Unsafe injection practices in health-care settings often result in notification of potentially affected patients, to disclose the error and recommend blood-borne pathogens testing. Few studies have assessed public perceptions and preferences for patient notification. METHODS: Six focus groups were conducted during Fall 2009, with residents of Atlanta, GA, and New York City, NY. Questions focused on preferences for receiving health information, knowledge of safe injection practices, and responses to and preferences for a patient notification letter. A mixed-method analysis was performed for qualitative themes and descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 53 individuals participated; only 2 had ever heard of the term safe injection practices. After identification of unsafe injection practices, participants preferred to be notified via telephone, letter/mailing, email, or face-to-face from the facility where the incident occurred. More than 25 different types of information were mentioned as elements to be placed in a patient notification letter including: corrective actions by the facility, course of action for the patient, assurance of medical coverage, and how it happened/reason for the incident. Participants preferred that the tone of the letter be empathetic; nearly all indicated it was "very likely" that they would seek testing if notified. CONCLUSIONS: Facilities and health departments should strive to assure the notification process is conducted swiftly, clearly guiding affected patients to the necessary course of action. Notification letters are not "one size fits all," and some preferences expressed by patients may not be feasible in all situations. Prevention efforts should be complemented by research on improving effective patient communications when unsafe injection practices necessitate patient notification.