In this controlled study, we found that exposure to ultraviolet-C (UV-C) radiation was able to arrest the growth of selected pathogenic enteric and nonfermenting Gram-negative rods. Further studies are needed to confirm the clinical efficacy and determine optimal implementation strategies for utilizing UV-C terminal disinfection.

Objectives: To address the importation of multi-drug-resistant organisms (MDROs) when a colonized or infected patient is transferred from another VA facility, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) launched the Inpatient Pathogen Tracker (IPT) in 2020. IPT tracks MDRO-infected/colonized patients and alerts MDRO Program Coordinators (MPCs) and Infection Preventionists (IPs) when such patients are admitted to their facility to facilitate rapid identification and isolation of infected/colonized patients. IPT usage has been low during initial rollout (32.5%). The VHA and the CARRIAGE QUERI Program developed targeted implementation strategies to increase utilization of IPT’s second iteration, VA Bug Alert (VABA). Methods: Familiarity with IPT was assessed via pre-education survey (3/2022). All sites received standard VABA implementation including: 1) adaptation of VABA features based on end-user feedback (completed 4/2022), 2) development and delivery of an educational module regarding the revised tool (completed 4/2022), and 3) internal facilitation from the VHA MDRO Program Office (ongoing) (see Figure for all key timepoints). Intent to register for VABA was assessed via post-education survey (4-5/2022). Sites (125 eligible) not registered for VABA by 6/1/2022 were randomly assigned to receive one of two conditions from 6/2022–8/2022: continued standard implementation alone or enhanced implementation. Enhanced implementation added the following to standard implementation: 1) audit and feedback reports and 2) external facilitation, including interviews and education about VABA. We compared the number of sites with ≥1 MPC/IP registered for VABA to-date between implementation conditions. Results: Pre-education survey. 168 MPC/IPs across 117 sites responded (94% of eligible sites). Among respondents, 25% had used IPT, 35.1% were familiar with but had not used IPT, and 39.9% were unfamiliar with IPT. Post-education survey. 93 MPC/IPs across 80 sites responded (59% of eligible sites). Of these, 81.7% said they planned to register for VABA, 4.3% said they would not register, and 14.0% said they were unsure. Post-6/1/2022 Registrations. By 6/1/2022, 71% of sites had ≥1 registered VABA user. Of the 28 unregistered sites eligible for enhanced implementation, thirteen were assigned to receive enhanced implementation, and fifteen were assigned to receive continued standard implementation. Eight sites in the enhanced implementation condition (61.5%) registered for VABA. Seven standard-implementation-only sites (46.7%) registered. The number of registered sites did not significantly differ by implementation condition (Fisher’s exact p=0.476). Conclusions: Standard and enhanced implementation were equally effective at encouraging VABA registration, suggesting that allocating resources to enhanced implementation may not be necessary.

Disclosures: None.

We explored experiences and perceptions surrounding the Self-Stewardship Time-Out Program (SSTOP) intervention across implementation sites to improve antimicrobial use. Semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted with Antibiotic Stewardship physicians and pharmacists, from which 5 key themes emerged. SSTOP may serve to achieve sustainable promotion of antibiotic use improvements.

To investigate factors that influence antibiotic prescribing decisions, we interviewed 49 antibiotic stewardship champions and stakeholders across 15 hospitals. We conducted thematic analysis and subcoding of decisional factors. We identified 31 factors that influence antibiotic prescribing decisions. These factors may help stewardship programs identify educational targets and design more effective interventions.

Background: Antimicrobials are frequently used during end-of-life care and may be prescribed without a clear clinical indication. Overuse of antimicrobials is a major public health concern because of the development of multidrug resistant organisms (MDROs). Antimicrobial stewardship programs are associated with reductions in antibiotic resistance and antibiotic-associated adverse events. We sought to identify and describe opportunities to successfully incorporate stewardship strategies into end-of-life care. Methods: We completed semistructured interviews with 15 healthcare providers at 2 VA medical centers, 1 inpatient setting and 1 long-term care setting. Interviews were conducted via telephone between November 2020 and June 2021 and covered topics related to antibiotic prescribing for hospice and palliative-care patients, including how to improve antimicrobial stewardship during the end-of-life period. We targeted healthcare providers who are involved in prescribing antibiotics during the end-of-life period, including hospitalists, infectious disease physicians, palliative care and hospice physicians, and pharmacists. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using consensus-based inductive and deductive coding. Results: End-of-life care, particularly hospice care, was described as an underutilized resource for patients, who are often enrolled in their final days of life rather than earlier in the dying process. Even at facilities with established antimicrobial stewardship programs, healthcare providers interviewed believed that opportunities for antimicrobial stewardship in the hospice and palliative care settings were missed. Recommendations for how stewardship should be incorporated in end-of-life care included receiving feedback on antimicrobial prescribing, increasing pharmacist involvement in prescribing decisions, and targeted education for providers on end-of-life care, including the value of shared decision making with patients around antibiotic use. Conclusions: Improved antibiotic prescribing during end-of-life care is critical in the effort to combat antimicrobial resistance. Healthcare providers discussed antimicrobial stewardship activities during end-of-life patient care as a potential avenue to improve appropriate antibiotic prescribing. Future research should evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of incorporating these strategies into end-of-life patient care.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

Background: Antibiotic use during end-of-life (EOL) care is an increasingly important target for antimicrobial stewardship given the high prevalence of antibiotic use in this setting with limited evidence on safety and effectiveness to guide antibiotic decision making. We estimated antibiotic use during the last 6 months of life for patients under hospice or palliative care, and we identified potential targets (ie time points) during the EOL period when antimicrobial stewardship interventions could be targeted for maximal benefit. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of nationwide Veterans’ Affairs (VA) patients, 18 years and older who died between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2019, and who had been hospitalized within 6 months prior to death. Data from the VA’s integrated electronic medical record (EMR) were collected including demographics, comorbid conditions, and duration of inpatient antibiotics administered, along with outpatient antibiotics dispensed. A propensity-score matched-cohort analysis was conducted to compare antibiotic use between patients placed into palliative care or hospice matched to patients not receiving palliative care or hospice care. Repeated measures ANOVA and repeated measures linear regression methods were used to analyze difference in difference (D-I-D) of days of therapy (DOT) between the 2 cohorts. Results: There were 251,822 patients in the cohort, including 23,746 in hospice care, 89,768 in palliative care, and 138,308 without palliative or hospice care. The median days from last discharge to death was 9 days. The most common comorbidities were chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (50%), malignancy (46%), and diabetes mellitus (43%). Overall, 18,296 (77%) of 23,746 hospice patients, and 71,812 (80%) of 89,768 palliative care patients received at least 1 antibiotic, whereas 95,167 (69%) of 138,308 who were not placed in hospice or did not receive palliative care received antibiotics. In the primary matched cohort analysis that compared patients placed into hospice or palliative care to propensity-score matched controls, entry into palliative care was associated with a 11% absolute increase in antibiotic prescribing, and entry into hospice was associated with a 4% absolute increase during the 7–14 days after entry versus the 7–14 days before entry (Fig. 1). The stratified cohorts had very similar balanced covariates as the overall cohort. Conclusions: In our large cohort study, we observed that patients receiving EOL care had high levels of antibiotic exposure across VA population, particularly on entry to hospice or during admissions when they received palliative care consultation. Future studies are needed to identify the optimal EOL strategies for collaboration between antimicrobial stewardship and palliative care.

Funding: None

Disclosures: None

Effective stewardship strategies such as an “antibiotic timeout” to encourage prescriber reflection on the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics are critical to reduce the threat of multidrug-resistant organisms. We sought to understand the facilitators and barriers of the implementation of the Antibiotic Self-Stewardship Timeout Program (SSTOP), which used a template note integrated into the electronic health record system to guide decision making regarding anti- methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) therapy after 3 days of hospitalization. We conducted interviews at 10 Veterans’ Affairs medical centers (VAMCs) during the preimplementation period (N = 16 antibiotic stewards) and postimplementation (N = 13 antibiotic stewards) ~12 months after program initiation. Preimplementation interviews focused on current stewardship programs, whereas postimplementation interviews addressed the implementation process and corresponding challenges. We also directly asked about the impact of COVID-19 on stewardship activities at each facility. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using consensus-based inductive and deductive coding. Codes were iteratively combined into barrier and facilitator groupings. Barriers identified in the preimplementation interviews included challenges with staffing, the difficulties of changing prescribing culture, and academic affiliates (eg, rotating physician trainees). Facilitators included intellectual support (eg, providers who understand the concept of stewardship), facility support, individual strengths of antibiotic stewards (eg, diplomacy, strong relationships with surgeons), and resources such as VA policies mandating stewardship. By the postimplementation phase, all sites reported a high volume of COVID-19 cases. Additional demands were placed on infectious disease providers who comprise the antibiotic stewardship teams, which complicated the implementation of SSTOP. Many barriers and facilitators mentioned were similar to those identified during preimplementation interviews. Staffing problems and specific providers not “getting it [stewardship activities]” continued, whereas facilitators centered around strong institutional support. Specific pandemic-related barriers included slow down or stoppage of stewardship activities including curbing of regular MRSA screening practices, halting weekly stewardship rounds, and delaying stewardship committee planning. Pandemic-specific staffing problems occurred due to the need for “all hands on deck” and challenges with staff working from home, as well as being pulled in multiple directions, (eg, writing COVID-19 policies). Furthermore, an increase in antibiotic use was also reported at sites during COVID-19 surges. Our findings indicate that SSTOP implementation met with barriers at most times; however, pandemic-specific barriers were particularly powerful. Sites with strong staffing resources were better equipped to deal with these challenges. Understanding how the program evolves with subsequent COVID-19 surges will be important to support the broad implementation of SSTOP.

Funding: No

Disclosures: None

Background: Environmental cleaning is important in the interruption of pathogen transmission and subsequent infection. Although recent initiatives have targeted cleaning of high-touch surfaces and incorporated audit-and-feedback monitoring of cleaning practices, practice variations exist and compliance is still reportedly low. Evaluation of human factors influencing variations in cleaning practices can be valuable in developing interventions, leading to standardized practices and improved compliance. We conducted a work system analysis using a human-factors engineering framework [the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) model] to identify barriers and facilitators to current environmental cleaning practices within Veterans’ Affairs hospitals. Methods: We conducted semistructured interviews with key stakeholders (ie, environmental staff, nursing, and infection preventionists) at 3 VA facilities across acute-care and long-term care settings. Interviews were conducted among 18 healthcare workers, audio recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analyzed for thematic content within the SEIPS constructs (ie, person, environment, organization, tasks, and tools). Results: Within the SEIPS domain ‘person,’ we found that many environment service (EVS) staff were veterans and were highly motivated to serve fellow veterans, especially to prevent them from acquiring infections. However, the hiring of service members as EVS staff comes with significant hurdles that affect staffing. Within the domain of ‘environment’, EVS staff reported rooms that were either occupied by the patient or were multibed, were more difficult to clean. Conversely, they reported that it was easier to clean in settings where the patient was more likely to be out of bed (eg, long-term care residents). Patient flow and/or movement greatly influenced workload within the ‘organizational’ domain. Workload also changed by patient population and setting (eg, the longer the stay or more critical the patient), increased their workload. EVS staff felt that staffing consistency and experience improved cleaning practices. Within the ‘task’ domain, EVS staff were motivated for cleaning high-touch surfaces; however, knowledge of these surfaces varied. Finally, within the ‘tool’ domain, most EVS staff described having effective cleaning products; however, sometimes in limited supply. Most sites reported some form of monitoring of their cleaning process; however, there was variation in type and frequency. Conclusions: Human-factors analysis identified barriers to and facilitators of cleaning compliance. Incorporating environmental cleaning practices that address barriers and facilitators identified may facilitate standardized cleaning of environmental surfaces. Standardized procedures for cleaning multibed rooms and environmental surfaces surrounding occupied beds may improve cleaning compliance. Future research should evaluate standardized cleaning procedures or bundles that incorporate these best practices and steps to overcoming barriers and pilot feasibility.

Funding: No

Disclosures: None

A survey of Veterans’ Affairs Medical Centers on control of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) and carbapenem-producing CRE (CP-CRE) demonstrated that most facilities use VA guidelines but few screen for CRE/CP-CRE colonization regularly or regularly communicate CRE/CP-CRE status at patient transfer. Most respondents were knowledgeable about CRE guidelines but cited lack of adequate resources.