Apenhorst, Debra

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: Carbapenemase-producing organisms (CPO) are a serious public health threat. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for combating CPO includes a recommendation to screen selected high risk patients. We describe a program to identify and screen patients at risk for CPO. Setting: An academic, tertiary care center with 2,059 licensed beds and 74,359 admissions a year. Methods: A report was created in the electronic medical record (EMR) to identify adult patients admitted in the previous 24 hours who were from countries and states with known CPO transmission based on address and zip code. A nursing protocol was subsequently developed in the EMR to facilitate CPO screening for eligible patients at admission. After the CPO order is placed, an electronic communication is sent via the EMR alerting the patient care team of the order, the rationale for screening, details on swab collection, and links to a toolkit with resources to help answer patient questions. A single perirectal swab is obtained by the patient’s primary nurse and is tested for Klebsiella pneumoniae Carbapenemase (KPC), New Delhi metallo-β-lactamase (NDM), oxacillinase-48 (OXA-48), and Verona integron-encoded metallo-β-lactamase (VIM) by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Patients may refuse testing. Results: From May 2018 through November 2025, 6,039 patients were identified for CPO screening using case-finding report. Of these patients, 2,424 had CPO swabs completed. Eighteen patients with CPO were identified with an overall yield of 0.75% on admission screening. There was one patient who tested positive for KPC, 10 patients who tested positive for NDM, and 5 patients who tested positive for OXA-48. Two patients were identified to have both NDM and OXA-48. Conclusions: The EMR can be leveraged for early identification and screening of patients with epidemiologically significant pathogens. Use of the nursing protocol has enabled IPAC to complete timely CPO surveillance and prevent transmission to other patients. Protocols within the EMR can be effectively replicated for a timely response to emerging infections.