To define outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) clinical pharmacy practice across the United States, specifically pharmacist functions, design of pharmacist involvement, and to compare pharmacist training of those who practice in OPAT to infectious diseases pharmacists who do not.

A survey of a possible 32 questions was emailed to the American College of Clinical Pharmacists (ACCP) Infectious Diseases Practice and Research Network (PRN) e-mail list. Results were focused on US-based respondents.

In total, 87 pharmacists responded; 27 of these pharmacists (31%) practiced in OPAT.

Training background did not differ between groups. Programs with an OPAT pharmacist were more likely to have a formal OPAT team compared to those without an OPAT pharmacist (P < .001). OPAT pharmacists were early in their careers with 66.7% practicing <5 years in OPAT. Most OPAT pharmacists (66.7%) practiced at an academic medical center with a median full-time equivalent (FTE) of 0.6. Moreover, 63% utilized a collaborative practice agreement and 81.5% shared job functions with other pharmacist roles, most commonly antimicrobial stewardship. Few OPAT programs involved a dispensing component (28%). The median daily census was 43 patients followed by an OPAT pharmacist. Pharmacists performed a variety of tasks in OPAT.

Pharmacist nondispensing involvement in OPAT is an emerging trend in the United States with wide variability in program structure and pharmacist tasks. A ratio of 1 OPAT pharmacist for every 45–70 OPAT patients is proposed to facilitate expansion of pharmacist clinical practice in OPAT.

To determine how pharmacists with formal antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) responsibilities prioritize their time and pharmacists without formal antimicrobial stewardship program responsibilities contribute to ASP activities.

A nationwide survey.

Members of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy who subscribe to the following practice and research network e-mail listservs: infectious diseases, adult medicine, cardiology, critical care, hematology–oncology, immunology and transplantation, and pediatrics.

A survey was distributed via listservs. Respondents were asked about their personal and institutional demographics and ASP activities.

In total, 245 pharmacists responded: 135 pharmacists with formal antimicrobial stewardship program responsibilities; 110 pharmacists without formal antimicrobial stewardship program responsibilities. Although most respondents had completed a general pharmacy residency (85%), only 20% had completed an infectious diseases (ID) specialty residency. Among pharmacists with formal antimicrobial stewardship program responsibilities, one-third had no formal training or certification in ID or ASP. Pharmacists without formal antimicrobial stewardship program responsibilities spent ∼12.5% of their time per week on ASP activities, whereas pharmacists with formal antimicrobial stewardship program responsibilities spent 28% of their time performing non-ASP activities. Pharmacists with formal antimicrobial stewardship program responsibilities were more likely than pharmacists without formal antimicrobial stewardship program responsibilities to perform antibiotic guideline development (P < .001), antibiotic-related education (P = .002), and direct notification of rapid diagnostic results (P = .018). Pharmacists with formal antimicrobial stewardship program responsibilities without formal ID training or certification spent less time on ASP activities and were more likely to perform lower-level interventions.

Many ASP activities are being performed by pharmacists without formal ID training. To ensure the future success of ASPs, pharmacists with formal antimicrobial stewardship program responsibilities should have adequate training to meet more advanced metrics, and more pharmacists without formal antimicrobial stewardship program responsibilities should be included in basic interventions.