Little is known about strategies to implement new critical care practices in response to COVID-19. Moreover, the association between differing implementation climates and COVID-19 clinical outcomes has not been examined. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between implementation determinants and COVID-19 mortality rates.

We used mixed methods guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with critical care leaders and analyzed to rate the influence of CFIR constructs on the implementation of new care practices. Qualitative and quantitative comparisons of CFIR construct ratings were performed between hospital groups with low- versus high-mortality rates.

We found associations between various implementation factors and clinical outcomes of critically ill COVID-19 patients. Three CFIR constructs (implementation climate, leadership engagement, and engaging staff) had both qualitative and statistically significant quantitative correlations with mortality outcomes. An implementation climate governed by a trial-and-error approach was correlated with high COVID-19 mortality, while leadership engagement and engaging staff were correlated with low mortality. Another three constructs (needs of patient; organizational incentives and rewards; and engaging implementation leaders) were qualitatively different across mortality outcome groups, but these differences were not statistically significant.

Improving clinical outcomes during future public health emergencies will require reducing identified barriers associated with high mortality and harnessing salient facilitators associated with low mortality. Our findings suggest that collaborative and engaged leadership styles that promote the integration of new yet evidence-based critical care practices best support COVID-19 patients and contribute to lower mortality.

To characterize the epidemiology and microbiology of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in a long-term acute care hospital (LTACH).

Retrospective study of prospectively identified cases of VAP.

Single-center, 207-bed LTACH with the capacity to house 42 patients requiring mechanical ventilation, evaluated from April 1, 2006, through January 31, 2008.

Data on the occurrence of VAP were collected prospectively as part of routine infection surveillance at Radius Specialty Hospital. After March 2006, Radius Specialty Hospital implemented a bundle of interventions for the prevention of VAP (hereafter referred to as the VAP-bundle approach). A case of VAP was defined as a patient who required mechanical ventilation at Radius Specialty Hospital for at least 48 hours before any symptoms of pneumonia appeared and who met the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria for VAP. Sputum samples were collected from a tracheal aspirate if there was clinical suspicion of VAP, and these samples were semi-quantitatively cultured.

During the 22-month study period, 23 cases of VAP involving 19 patients were associated with 157 LTACH admissions (infection rate, 14.6%), corresponding to a rate of 1.67 cases per 1,000 ventilator-days, which is a 56% reduction from the VAP rate of 3.8 cases per 1,000 ventilator-days reported before the implementation of the VAP-bundle approach (P<.001). Microbiological data were available for 21 (91%) of 23 cases of VAP. Cases of VAP in the LTACH were frequently polymicrobial (mean number ± SD, 1.78 ± 1.0 pathogens per case of VAP), and 20 (95%) of 21 cases of VAP had at least 1 pathogen (Pseudomonas species, Acinetobacter species, gram-negative bacilli resistant to more than 3 antibiotics, or methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) cultured from a sputum sample. LTACH patients with VAP were more likely to have a neurological reason for ventilator dependence, compared with LTACH patients without VAP (69.6% of cases of VAP vs 39% of cases of respiratory failure; P = .014). In addition, patients with VAP had a longer length of LTACH stay, compared with patients without VAP (median length of stay, 131 days vs 39 days; P = .002). In 6 (26%) of 23 cases of VAP, the patient was eventually weaned from use of mechanical ventilation. Of the 19 patients with VAP, 1 (5%) did not survive the LTACH stay.

The VAP rate in the LTACH is lower than the VAP rate reported in acute care hospitals. Cases of VAP in the LTACH were frequently polymicrobial and were associated with multidrug-resistant pathogens and increased length of stay. The guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that are aimed at reducing cases of VAP appear to be effective if applied in the LTACH setting.