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.

Research career development awards (CDAs) facilitate development of clinician-scientists. This study compared the academic achievements of individuals in a structured institutional “pre-K” CDA program, the Mayo Clinic Kern Scholars program, with individuals who applied for but were not admitted to the Kern program (“Kern applicants”), and awardees of other unstructured internal CDAs.

This was a longitudinal cohort study of clinicians engaged in research at Mayo Clinic between 2010 and 2019. The primary outcome was time to the 15th new peer-reviewed publication after the program start, adjusted for baseline number of publications. Secondarily, we described successful awarding of federal funding by the NIH or VA.

The median (IQR) number of baseline publications was highest among Kern Scholars compared to Kern Applicants or other CDA awardees [16 (12, 29) vs 5 (1, 11) and 8 (5, 16); P < 0.001]. After adjustment for baseline publications, the time to 15th new publication was significantly shorter for Kern Scholars than for the two comparator groups (P<0.001). Similar findings were observed with total new publications within 5 years (P < 0.001), as well as number of new first-/last-author publications within 5 years (P < 0.001). The overall frequency of K-awards, R-awards (or equivalent), or any funding were similar between groups, with the exception of R03 awards, which were significantly more common among Kern Scholars (P = 0.002).

The Kern Scholars program is a successful training model for clinician-scientists that demonstrated comparatively greater acceleration of scholarly productivity than other internal CDA programs.