Higbe, Leah

Background: Measles is a highly transmissible virus. A single case can result in significant exposures within a healthcare facility and prompt action is needed to prevent secondary cases. In October 2025, Infection Prevention and Control (IPAC) was notified of a patient being admitted to our facility with recent international travel and symptoms consistent with measles. The patient was unvaccinated and had five healthcare facility visits prior to measles being suspected and subsequently confirmed. Objective: To describe our facility’s effective identification, prioritization, and prophylaxis of individuals exposed to measles. Methods: IPAC leveraged the electronic medical record to identify potentially exposed patients. Patients were quickly assessed for age and immune status, then prioritized and assigned to primary care teams. These teams promptly contacted patients and coordinated PEP administration. Results: Across five encounters, the index patient exposed 539 other patients. Due to delayed notification, our teams had less than four days to administer PEP for those exposed and still within PEP window. PEP administration began within hours of the index case’s positive test and patients received PEP within three days (Table 1). No secondary measles cases occurred within our facility. Conclusion: Timely and coordinated multidisciplinary effort enabled us to rapidly respond to our first measles case and control secondary transmission. Although the index case resulted in a large exposure, patients that were exposed and eligible for PEP were quickly prioritized to prevent secondary transmission.

Background: Advanced planning and adaptable response strategies are essential for preventing measles transmission in healthcare facilities. Objective: To describe a measles management plan and subsequent modifications in response to a cluster of measles cases. Methods: Drawing on previously published work (doi:10.1017/ice.2025.49), the Infection Prevention and Control (IPAC) team initiated a multi-disciplinary team and developed a measles preparedness plan with the following domains: Guidance and education; early detection and testing; isolation and patient movement; contact tracing and exposure management (Table 1). In October 2025, a patient was admitted during their fifth healthcare encounter and was diagnosed with measles. Two family members were later hospitalized with measles. Delayed recognition of the first case prompted enhancements to our preparedness framework (Table 1). Results: The first case resulted in 539 exposed patients. The second resulted in 87 exposures, and the third resulted in no exposure. Despite the extensive exposure, zero secondary measles were reported. Conclusion: Proactive planning enabled rapid response to our first case and controlled secondary transmission. Despite extensive planning, delayed identification of the first case caused significant exposures. As the cluster unfolded, we refined our plan, resulting in zero exposures from the last patient and zero secondary cases, despite over 850 exposures. These efforts may guide other healthcare facilities in improving their measles preparedness and response.

Background: While criteria for the diagnosis of nosocomial pneumonias exist, objective definitions are a challenge and there is no gold standard for diagnosis. We analyzed the impact of the implementation of a logical, consensus-based diagnostic and treatment protocol for managing nosocomial pneumonias in the cardiovascular surgery intensive care unit (CVS-ICU). Methods: We conducted a quasi-experimental, interrupted time series analysis to evaluate the impact of a diagnostic and treatment protocol for nosocomial pneumonias in the CVS-ICU. Impacts were measured relative to patient outcomes, diagnostic processes, and antimicrobial stewardship improvement. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze results. Results: Overall, 35 pre-protocol and 39 post-protocol patients were included. Primary clinical variables suggesting pneumonia in pre- and post-protocol patients were new lung consolidation (50% vs. 71%), new leukocytosis (59% vs. 64%), and positive culture (32% vs. 55%). Appropriate diagnostic testing improved (23% vs. 54%, p = 0.008) after protocol implementation. The proportion of patients meeting the criteria for nosocomial pneumonia (77% vs. 87%) was not statistically significant, though more patients in the post-protocol group met probable diagnostic criteria (51% vs. 77%). Duration of therapy was not significantly different (6 days [IQR = 5.0, 10.0] vs. 7 days [IQR = 6.0, 9.0]). Conclusions: The implementation of a diagnostic and treatment protocol for management of nosocomial pneumonias in the CVS-ICU resulted in improved diagnostic accuracy, advanced antimicrobial and diagnostic stewardship efforts, and laboratory cost savings without an adverse impact on patient-centered outcomes.