To determine the proportion of hospitals that implemented 6 leading practices in their antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs). Design: Cross-sectional observational survey.

Acute-care hospitals.

ASP leaders.

Advance letters and electronic questionnaires were initiated February 2020. Primary outcomes were percentage of hospitals that (1) implemented facility-specific treatment guidelines (FSTG); (2) performed interactive prospective audit and feedback (PAF) either face-to-face or by telephone; (3) optimized diagnostic testing; (4) measured antibiotic utilization; (5) measured C. difficile infection (CDI); and (6) measured adherence to FSTGs.

Of 948 hospitals invited, 288 (30.4%) completed the questionnaire. Among them, 82 (28.5%) had <99 beds, 162 (56.3%) had 100–399 beds, and 44 (15.2%) had ≥400+ beds. Also, 230 (79.9%) were healthcare system members. Moreover, 161 hospitals (54.8%) reported implementing FSTGs; 214 (72.4%) performed interactive PAF; 105 (34.9%) implemented procedures to optimize diagnostic testing; 235 (79.8%) measured antibiotic utilization; 258 (88.2%) measured CDI; and 110 (37.1%) measured FSTG adherence. Small hospitals performed less interactive PAF (61.0%; P = .0018). Small and nonsystem hospitals were less likely to optimize diagnostic testing: 25.2% (P = .030) and 21.0% (P = .0077), respectively. Small hospitals were less likely to measure antibiotic utilization (67.8%; P = .0010) and CDI (80.3%; P = .0038). Nonsystem hospitals were less likely to implement FSTGs (34.3%; P < .001).

Significant variation exists in the adoption of ASP leading practices. A minority of hospitals have taken action to optimize diagnostic testing and measure adherence to FSTGs. Additional efforts are needed to expand adoption of leading practices across all acute-care hospitals with the greatest need in smaller hospitals.

Bloodstream infection (BSI) rates are used as comparative clinical performance indicators; however, variations in definitions and data-collection approaches make it difficult to compare and interpret rates. To determine the extent to which variation in indicator specifications affected infection rates and hospital performance rankings, we compared absolute rates and relative rankings of hospitals across 5 BSI indicators.

Multicenter observational study. BSI rate specifications varied by data source (clinical data, administrative data, or both), scope (hospital wide or intensive care unit specific), and inclusion/exclusion criteria. As appropriate, hospital-specific infection rates and rankings were calculated by processing data from each site according to 2-5 different specifications.

A total of 28 hospitals participating in the EPIC study.

Hospitals submitted deidentified information about all patients with BSIs from January through September 1999.

Median BSI rates for 2 indicators based on intensive care unit surveillance data ranged from 2.23 to 2.91 BSIs per 1000 central-line days. In contrast, median rates for indicators based on administrative data varied from 0.046 to 7.03 BSIs per 100 patients. Hospital-specific rates and rankings varied substantially as different specifications were applied; the rates of 8 of 10 hospitals were both greater than and less than the mean. Correlations of hospital rankings among indicator pairs were generally low (rs = 0-0.45), except when both indicators were based on intensive care unit surveillance (rs = 0.83).

Although BSI rates seem to be a logical indicator of clinical performance, the use of various indicator specifications can produce remarkably different judgments of absolute and relative performance for a given hospital. Recent national initiatives continue to mix methods for specifying BSI rates; this practice is likely to limit the usefulness of such information for comparing and improving performance.

To describe the conceptual framework and methodology of the Evaluation of Processes and Indicators in Infection Control (EPIC) study and present results of CVC insertion characteristics and organizational practices for preventing BSIs. The goal of the EPIC study was to evaluate relationships among processes of care, organizational characteristics, and the outcome of BSI.

This was a multicenter prospective observational study of variation in hospital practices related to preventing CVC-associated BSIs. Process of care information (eg, barrier use during insertions and experience of the inserting practitioner) was collected for a random sample of approximately 5 CVC insertions per month per hospital during November 1998 to December 1999. Organization demographic and practice information (eg, surveillance activities and staff and ICU nurse staffing levels) was also collected.

Medical, surgical, or medical-surgical ICUs from 55 hospitals (41 U.S. and 14 international sites).

Process information was obtained for 3,320 CVC insertions with an average of 58.2 (± 16.1) insertions per hospital. Fifty-four hospitals provided policy and practice information.

Staff spent an average of 13 hours per week in study ICU surveillance. Most patients received nontunneled, multiple lumen CVCs, of which fewer than 25% were coated with antimicrobial material. Regarding barriers, most clinicians wore masks (81.5%) and gowns (76.8%); 58.1% used large drapes. Few hospitals (18.1%) used an intravenous team to manage ICU CVCs.

Substantial variation exists in CVC insertion practice and BSI prevention activities. Understanding which practices have the greatest impact on BSI rates can help hospitals better target improvement interventions.