As part of the 2017 Epi Project Competition, the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America Education and Research Foundation will fund research to identify human risk factors for complications from central venous catheters for patients who are self-administering at-home IV antibiotics. Sara Keller, MD, MPH, MSHP, assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins Hospital, was honored with the early investigator award at SHEA’s Spring 2017 Conference in St. Louis.
“Improving the transition from the hospital to the home is critical. As patients and caregivers are providing more direct care, the field must consider how to best translate infection prevention guidelines for use in the home, while maintaining patient safety,” said Nasia Safdar, MD, chair of the SHEA Research Committee. “Dr. Keller and other early investigators in the field are using their insight to evolve healthcare epidemiology and improve care in real-world settings.”
Keller will use human factors engineering principles and methods to complete a proactive risk assessment to identify ways in which Outpatient Parenteral Antimicrobial Therapy (OPAT) patients might be put at risk from central venous catheters in the home. OPAT – in which patients and their caregivers infuse parenteral antimicrobial therapy through central venous catheters – is a complicated home-based therapy received by 480,000 patients yearly. These patients are at risk of catheter complications, such as central line-associated bloodstream infection, 30-day readmission to the hospital, adverse drug events, and infection relapse.
In the study, Keller and her team will use innovative patient-centered research methods to learn why these complications occur, and how to prevent them, by learning how patients and their caregivers actually perform day-to-day catheter care. This will fill critical gaps in knowledge around how patients and caregivers perform home-based therapies and will make OPAT safety a patient-centered process.
The study proposal was selected from a competitive pool of five finalists in the SHEA Epi Project Competition. The competition was created to encourage future leaders in the field to shape the understanding of transmission, prevention and implementation of improvements in infection prevention and control. The competition is designed to identify and support new healthcare epidemiology research initiatives that align with SHEA's Research Agenda. As 2017 Epi-Project winner, Keller will receive a grant award up to $20,000 from the SHEA Research and Education Foundation for her project.
“Through the SHEA Epi Project proposals, we see the strength of the future leaders in healthcare epidemiology. Their drive toward improving outcomes and creating a safer, healthier future for all is inspiring and SHEA is proud to be able to support their efforts,” said Lona Mody, MD, MSc, chair of the SHEA Epi Project Competition.
Source: Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA)
How Contaminated Is Your Stretcher? The Hidden Risks on Hospital Wheels
July 3rd 2025Despite routine disinfection, hospital surfaces, such as stretchers, remain reservoirs for harmful microbes, according to several recent studies. From high-touch areas to damaged mattresses and the effectiveness of antimicrobial coatings, researchers continue to uncover persistent risks in environmental hygiene, highlighting the critical need for innovative, continuous disinfection strategies in health care settings.
Beyond the Surface: Rethinking Environmental Hygiene Validation at Exchange25
June 30th 2025Environmental hygiene is about more than just shiny surfaces. At Exchange25, infection prevention experts urged the field to look deeper, rethink blame, and validate cleaning efforts across the entire care environment, not just EVS tasks.
A Controversial Reboot: New Vaccine Panel Faces Scrutiny, Support, and Sharp Divides
June 26th 2025As the newly appointed Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) met for the first time under sweeping changes by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr, the national spotlight turned to the panel’s legitimacy, vaccine guidance, and whether science or ideology would steer public health policy in a polarized era.