We reviewed infection prevention policies using an adapted Equity Impact Assessment tool. Thirty-one percent of policies had substantial potential to impact marginalized groups and create or sustain inequities, and most lacked existing equity considerations. Systematic policy review for equity implications can result in actions to improve care and quality.

Background: Most antibiotic use occurs in ambulatory settings. Antibiotic prescribing for children living in the United States in medically underserved areas or in populations is not well understood.

Objective: To characterize antibiotic prescribing for children in a practice-based research network (PBRN).

Design and Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we characterized oral antibiotic prescribing in a large PBRN. Patients aged 0–17 years with at least 1 in-person visit between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2018, at 1 of 25 primary-care clinics located within the WWAMI (Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, and Idaho) region of the Practice and Research Network (WPRN) were included. Data were extracted from DataQUEST, a centralized data repository from included primary-care clinics. Encounters for wellness visits or those lacking a diagnosis code and patients with complex chronic conditions were excluded. Diagnoses were categorized using International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) and ICD-10 codes. Oral antibiotics prescribed within 3 days of an encounter were associated with that encounter. Demographic data included age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Antibiotic appropriateness was determined using a previously published 3-tiered classification system using diagnosis codes as always, sometimes, or never appropriate. Patient-level data (ZIP codes) were used to designate medically underserved areas (MUAs) and medically underserved populations (MUPs). Antibiotic prescribing was then analyzed within these groups. Results: In total, 37,314 patients across 206,845 encounters were included, of which 34,601 encounters (17%) resulted in antibiotic prescription (Table 1). Of those, appropriateness data were available for 34,286 (99%). Of the antibiotics prescribed, 14% were always appropriate, 57% were sometimes appropriate, and 27% were never appropriate (1% missing). In total, 64% and 35% of encounters occurred with patients from an MUA and MUP, respectively. Conclusions: Targets to improve oral antibiotic prescribing for children in a large PBRN include antibiotic prescribing for diagnoses that never require an antibiotic. Larger comparative studies may focus on the role (if any) that MUA/MUP has on antibiotic prescribing.

Disclosures: None

Background: Infection prevention teams utilize policies to guide practice; however, some policies may inadvertently uphold institutional racism and discrimination. Our institution utilizes an equity impact assessment tool during new policy creation or existing policy updates to identify, reduce, eliminate, and prevent inequities in care. Methods: We reviewed all 119 current institution-wide policy documents related to or managed by the infection prevention division at Seattle Children’s Hospital using an institutional equity impact assessment tool. The tool asks 6 open-ended questions to help policy owners identify potential inequities and to evaluate how marginalized groups may be affected. Each policy was assessed for its potential to create or sustain inequities for patients, families, or staff. Policies determined to have potential inequities were examined for any language to suggest that equity considerations had been incorporated into the existing policy. Initial policy review was performed by 2 infection prevention physicians, and disagreements were resolved by consensus. We defined the presence of equity considerations as any explicit mention of disparate impact of the policy on marginalized groups or mitigation of such effect. Results: Of the 119 policies reviewed, 43 (36%) were identified as having substantial potential to impact marginalized groups and create or sustain inequities. Among them, 42 (98%) of these policies lacked existing equity considerations. The policies with potential equity implications covered the following categories: COVID-19 (including masking, workforce restriction, testing), visitor restrictions, tuberculosis, central-line–associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs), multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs), public health reporting, medical behavioral unit policies, off-site affiliate housing policies, special pathogens program (including Ebola, MERS, SARS), surgical-site infections, home care including dialysis, and occupational health-related policies. Examples of policies that did not highlight inequities included those pertaining to construction, water intrusion, and transmission-based precautions. One example of change driven by use of the equity impact assessment tool concerned communication with patients and families about tuberculosis isolation and resulted in creation of a standardized multidisciplinary care conference to better communicate tuberculosis isolation processes (including testing required, visitor restrictions, and anticipated duration of isolation) to families in their language of care. Conclusions: Hospital-wide infection prevention policies have the potential to create or sustain existing inequities. Systematic consideration of equity implications using an equity impact assessment framework could be the first step in mitigating these effects and can result in concrete actions to reduce systemic racism.

Disclosure: None

Using a mixed-methods approach, we assessed the effect of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) in Colorado hospitals. ASP leaders reported decreased time and resources, reduced rigor of stewardship interventions, inability to complete new initiatives, and interpersonal challenges. Stewardship activities may be threatened during times of acute resource pressure.

Background: Adherence to core elements of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) is increasing nationally but the robustness of programs and inclusion of pediatrics is poorly understood. We describe the details of ASP in Colorado hospitals and identify steps by which academic centers and public health departments can assist community ASPs. Methods: We invited ASP leaders at the 102 acute-care hospitals (ACHs) and critical-access hospitals (CAHs) in Colorado to participate in a web-based survey regarding their ASPs. Questions related to adherence to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) core elements, barriers to improvement, desired resources, and extension to pediatrics. Enrollment began in August 2020. Hospital types were compared using the Fisher exact test. Results: As of January 1, 2021, 31 hospitals (30% of targeted hospitals) completed the web-based survey including 19 ACH and 12 CAH. Hospitals were distributed across the state. Median number of beds was 52 (range, 11–680). Of the responding hospitals, 87% were adherent to all CDC core elements. However, if action was defined as prospective audit and feedback or prior authorization, tracking was defined as measuring antibiotic use in days of therapy (DOT) or defined daily dose (DDD) quarterly, and reporting was defined as providing unit- or provider-specific antibiotic use reports annually. Overall adherence fell to 35% including 81% for action, 58% for tracking, and 58% for reporting. CAHs were less likely to adhere to these strict criteria than ACHs (Figure 1). In the 27 hospitals (87% of hospitals) caring for pediatric patients, adherence to a strict action for at least 1 pediatric population was 59%. Reported barriers to improved ASP were available time and personnel, information technology support, perceived concerns about provider attitudes, and education gaps (Figure 2). CAHs were less likely to use the NHSN antibiotic use or resistance modules or have a data analyst than ACHs (Figure 3). Pediatric pharmacy expertise and guidelines were often not available in hospitals caring for pediatric patients. Desired ASP resources included assistance with data analysis, access to stewardship expertise and education, and treatment guidelines, including for pediatrics. Conclusions: Adherence to CDC core elements of an ASP was excellent but fell dramatically when stricter criteria were used and was worse in pediatric patients. Academic centers and public health departments can assist community hospitals by providing educational resources, assistance in analyzing data including using the NHSN ED: /AR modules, and ASP expertise and clinical care guidelines including those for pediatrics.

Funding: No

Disclosures: None

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Background: Systemic racism results in health inequities based on patient race, ethnicity, and language preference. Whether these inequities exist in pediatric central-line–associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) is unknown. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients with central lines hospitalized from October 2012 to June 2019 at our tertiary-care children’s hospital. Self-reported race, ethnicity, language preference, demographic, and clinical factors were extracted from the electronic health record. The primary outcome was non–mucosal barrier injury (non-MBI) CLABSI episodes as defined by the NHSN. CLABSI rates between groups were compared using χ2 tests and Cox proportional hazard regression. We adjusted for care unit, age, immunosuppressed status, diapered status, central-line type, line insertion within 7 days, daily CLABSI maintenance bundle compliance, number of blood draws and IV medication doses, and need for total parental nutrition, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and renal replacement therapy. In mid-2019, we engaged stakeholders in each care unit to describe preliminary findings and to identify and address potential drivers of observed inequities. Results: We included 337 non-MBI CLABSI events over 230,699 central-line days (CLDs). The overall non-MBI CLABSI rate during the study period was 1.46 per 1,000 CLDs. Unadjusted CLABSI rates for black or African American (henceforth, “black”), Hispanic, non-Hispanic white, and Asian (the 4 largest race or ethnicity groups by CLDs) patients were 2.74, 1.53, 1.42, 1.24 per 1,000 CLDs, respectively (P < .001) (Table 1). Unadjusted CLABSI rates for patients with limited-English proficiency (LEP) and English-language preference were 1.98 and 1.38 per 1,000 CLDs, respectively (P = .014). After adjusting for covariates, the hazard ratio (HR) point estimate for CLABSI rate remained higher for black patients (HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 0.99–2.28) and patients with LEP (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.87–2.05), compared to the reference group based on largest CLD. The differences in CLABSI rate by race or ethnicity and language were more pronounced in 2 of our 6 care units. Stakeholder engagement and analysis of hospital data revealed opportunities on those units for improved (1) interpreter utilization and (2) line maintenance observation practices by race/ethnicity and language preference (data not shown). These findings and CLABSI rates over time by race/ethnicity and language preference (Figures 1 and 2) were shared with frontline staff. Conclusions: In our children’s hospital, CLABSI rates differed based on patients’ self-reported race, ethnicity, and language preference, despite controlling for factors commonly associated with CLABSI. Identifying inequities in CLABSI rates and mitigating their determinants are both essential to the goal of achieving equitable care.

Funding: No

Disclosures: None

Table 1.

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

We observed pediatric S. aureus hospitalizations decreased 36% from 26.3 to 16.8 infections per 1,000 admissions from 2009 to 2016, with methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) decreasing by 52% and methicillin-susceptible S. aureus decreasing by 17%, among 39 pediatric hospitals. Similar decreases were observed for days of therapy of anti-MRSA antibiotics.

Standard metrics for antimicrobial use consider volume but not spectrum of antimicrobial prescribing. We developed an antibiotic spectrum index (ASI) to classify commonly used antibiotics based on activity against important pathogens. The application of this index to hospital antibiotic use reveals how this tool enhances current antimicrobial stewardship metrics.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:993–997

We analyzed antifungal and antiviral prescribing among high-risk children across freestanding children’s hospitals. Antifungal and antiviral days of therapy varied across hospitals. Benchmarking antifungal and antiviral use and developing antimicrobial stewardship strategies to optimize use of these high cost agents is needed.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:743–746

We used the Pediatric Health Information System database to assess the use of antibiotics reserved for the treatment of resistant Gram-negative infections in children from 2004 to 2014. Overall, use of these agents increased in children from 2004 to 2007 and subsequently decreased.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016:37:967–970

We analyzed the cost of antimicrobial prescribing across freestanding children’s hospitals. A few specific antimicrobials accounted for a large proportion of expenditures, and antimicrobial spending varied substantially across hospitals, even within specific clinical conditions. Antimicrobial stewardship programs should consider these data to incorporate high-value antimicrobial prescribing when clinically appropriate.

Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015;36(10):1242–1244