Community advisory boards (CABs) are an established approach to ensuring research reflects community priorities. This paper examines two CABs that are part of the HEALing Communities Study which aims to reduce overdose mortality. This analysis aimed to understand CAB members’ expectations, experiences, and perspectives on CAB structure, communication, facilitation, and effectiveness during the first year of an almost fully remote CAB implementation. Current literature exploring these perspectives is limited.

We collected qualitative and survey data simultaneously from members (n = 53) of two sites’ CABs in the first 9 months of CAB development. The survey assessed trust, communication, and relations; we also conducted 32 semi-structured interviews. We analyzed the survey results descriptively. The qualitative data were analyzed using a deductive codebook based on the RE-AIM PRISM framework. Themes were drawn from the combined qualitative data and triangulated with survey results to further enrich the findings.

CAB members expressed strong commitment to overall study goals and valued the representation of occupational sectors. The qualitative data described a dissonance between CAB members’ commitment to the mission and unmet expectations for influencing the study within an advisory role. Survey results indicated lower satisfaction with the research teams’ ability to create a mutually beneficial process, clear communication, and sharing of power.

Building a CAB on a remote platform, within a study utilizing a community engagement strategy, still presents challenges to fully realizing the potential of a CAB. These findings can inform more effective operationalizing of community-engaged research through enhanced CAB engagement.

To examine the perspectives of caregivers that are not part of the antibiotic stewardship program (ASP) leadership team (eg, physicians, nurses, and clinical pharmacists), but who interact with ASPs in their role as frontline healthcare workers.

Qualitative semistructured interviews.

The study was conducted in 2 large national healthcare systems including 7 hospitals in the Veterans’ Health Administration and 4 hospitals in Intermountain Healthcare.

We interviewed 157 participants. The current analysis includes 123 nonsteward clinicians: 47 physicians, 26 pharmacists, 29 nurses, and 21 hospital leaders.

Interviewers utilized a semistructured interview guide based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), which was tailored to the participant’s role in the hospital as it related to ASPs. Qualitative analysis was conducted using a codebook based on the CFIR.

We identified 4 primary perspectives regarding ASPs. (1) Non-ASP pharmacists considered antibiotic stewardship activities to be a high priority despite the added burden to work duties: (2) Nurses acknowledged limited understanding of ASP activities or involvement with these programs; (3) Physicians criticized ASPs for their restrictions on clinical autonomy and questioned the ability of antibiotic stewards to make recommendations without the full clinical picture; And (4) hospital leaders expressed support for ASPs and recognized the unique challenges faced by non-ASP clinical staff.

Further understanding these differing perspectives of ASP implementation will inform possible ways to improve ASP implementation across clinical roles.

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 examine how individual steward characteristics (eg, steward role, sex, and specialized training) are associated with their views of antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) implementation at their institution.

Descriptive survey from a mixed-methods study.

Two large national healthcare systems; the Veterans’ Health Administration (VA) (n = 134 hospitals) and Intermountain Healthcare (IHC; n = 20 hospitals).

We sent the survey to 329 antibiotic stewards serving in 154 hospitals; 152 were physicians and 177 were pharmacists. In total, 118 pharmacists and 64 physicians from 126 hospitals responded.

The survey was grounded in constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, and it assessed stewards’ views on the development and implementation of antibiotic stewardship programs (ASPs) at their institutions We then examined differences in stewards’ views by demographic factors.

Regardless of individual factors, stewards agreed that the ASP added value to their institution and was advantageous to patient care. Stewards also reported high levels of collegiality and self-efficacy. Stewards who had specialized training or those volunteered for the role were less likely to think that the ASP was implemented due to a mandate. Similarly volunteers and those with specialized training felt that they had authority in the antibiotic decisions made in their facility.

Given the importance of ASPs, it may be beneficial for healthcare institutions to recruit and train individuals with a true interest in stewardship.

To examine inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory tract infections (RTIs) in ambulatory care to help target antimicrobial stewardship interventions.

Retrospective analysis of RTI visits within general internal medicine (GIM) and family medicine (FM) ambulatory practices at an inner-city academic medical center from 2008 to 2010.

Patient, physician, and practice characteristics were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression to determine factors predictive of inappropriate prescribing; physicians in the highest and lowest antibiotic-prescribing quartiles were compared using χ2 analysis.

Visits with FM providers, female gender, and self-reported race/ethnicity as white or Hispanic were significantly associated with inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. Physicians in the lowest quartile prescribed antibiotics for 5%–28% (mean, 21%) of RTI visits; physicians in the highest quartile prescribed antibiotics for 54%–85% (mean, 65%) of RTI visits. High prescribers had fewer African-American patients and more patients who were younger and privately insured. High prescribers had more patients with chronic lung disease. A GIM practice pod with a low prescriber was 3.0 times more likely to have a second low prescriber than other practice pods, whereas pods with a high prescriber were 1.3 times more likely to have a second high prescriber.

Medical specialty was the only physician factor predictive of inappropriate prescribing when patient gender, race, and comorbidities were taken into account. Possible disparities in care need further study. Stewardship education in medical school, enlisting low prescribers as physician leaders, and targeting interventions to the highest prescribers might be more effective approaches to antimicrobial stewardship.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014;00(0): 1–7