3 results
Use of leading practices in US hospital antimicrobial stewardship programs
- Edward A. Stenehjem, Barbara I. Braun, Salome O. Chitavi, David Y. Hyun, Stephen P. Schmaltz, Mohamad G. Fakih, Melinda M. Neuhauser, Lisa E. Davidson, Marc J. Meyer, Pranita D. Tamma, Elizabeth S. Dodds-Ashley, David W. Baker
-
- Journal:
- Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology / Volume 44 / Issue 6 / June 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 13 October 2022, pp. 861-868
- Print publication:
- June 2023
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Objective:
To determine the proportion of hospitals that implemented 6 leading practices in their antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs). Design: Cross-sectional observational survey.
Setting:Acute-care hospitals.
Participants:ASP leaders.
Methods: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.
Results: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).
Conclusions: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.
Implementing Leading antimicrobial stewardship practices in United States hospitals – A qualitative study
- Salome Chitavi, Mike Kohut, Barbara Braun, Meghann Adams, David Hyun
-
- Journal:
- Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology / Volume 2 / Issue S1 / July 2022
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 16 May 2022, pp. s25-s26
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- Export citation
-
Background: In May 2018, The Joint Commission, The Pew Charitable Trusts, and the CDC cosponsored a meeting of experts who identified 6 evidence-based leading practices that antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) should be doing beyond having basic infrastructure for improving antibiotic prescribing. The Joint Commission Department of Research working with external experts in 2020 conducted a prevalence study to assess what proportion of Joint Commission-accredited hospitals had implemented the 6 leading practices identified (results presented at SHEA Spring 2021). In this qualitative study, we collected information about how hospitals implemented ASP leading practices to identify facilitators and barriers to implementation among diverse hospitals. Methods: We conducted in-depth telephone interviews with a subset of ASP leaders from hospitals that participated in the 2020 prevalence study. We used purposive sampling to select 30 hospitals from 288 hospitals based on leading practices implemented, hospital size, and system membership. An experienced qualitative researcher (M.K.) not previously affiliated with the Joint Commission interviewed all participants using a semistructured interview guide. The framework method of analysis was used to review and organize data. We used the constant comparative approach to ensure that factors were not missed. Each transcript was reviewed by at least 2 researchers who compared coded findings in group discussion sessions. Two researchers independently identified key factors and combined findings following discussion and review. We focused on super factors that are relevant to implementing multiple leading practices. Results: ASP leaders from 30 hospitals were interviewed. Participating hospitals were evenly distributed across hospital size (10 small, 10 medium, 10 large) and membership in a health system (16 system, 14 nonsystem). At least 14, (46.7%) interviewees had pharmacist in their title; 11 (36.7%) had pharmacist-antimicrobial stewardship; and 5 (16.6%) had other titles (eg, infection preventionist). Super factors included ASP team capacity, ID expertise, having a physician champion, relationships with clinicians and relevant departments, structure of electronic health records, adequate software, and information technology resources. Small and rural nonsystem hospitals often lacked resources related to ID expertise, dedicated staff, and software tools, whereas hospitals that belong to a system benefit from centralized ID expertise and technical infrastructure provided. Conclusions: Specific factors related to personnel, relationships and IT resources have an outsized impact on implementing multiple leading antimicrobial stewardship practices in hospitals. Hospital ASPs could benefit by targeting resources toward these areas.
Funding: None
Disclosures: None
Evaluating the Prevalence of Leading Practices in Antimicrobial Stewardship
- Barbara Braun, Salome Chitavi, Eddie Stenehjem, Mushira Khan, David Baker, David Hyun
-
- Journal:
- Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology / Volume 1 / Issue S1 / July 2021
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 29 July 2021, p. s41
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- Export citation
-
Background: Most hospitals have a basic infrastructure in place for antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs). Although this is a critical first step, we need to ensure that ASPs are working to implement effective evidence-based approaches nationally. In 2018, a group of leading antibiotic stewardship organizations met and identified specific, effective, and recommended ASP activities based on current scientific evidence and their experience (Baker et al, Joint Comm J Qual Pat Saf 2019;45:517–523). To determine the extent to which hospitals are currently implementing the recommended practices, we conducted an electronic questionnaire–based assessment. Methods: A 50-item questionnaire-based assessment was sent via QualtricsTM to the hospital’s designated ASP leader. The sample comprised 992 Joint Commission accredited hospitals. The practices of interest related to (1) development of facility-specific treatment guidelines, (2) measuring appropriate use and concordance of care with these guidelines, (3) engaging clinicians while the patient is on the unit, (4) diagnostic stewardship, (5) measurement of antimicrobial utilization data, and (6) measuring hospital-acquired Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) rates. Sampling weights were used to adjust the results for nonresponse using R software. Results: In total, 288 hospitals completed the questionnaire. Small and nonteaching hospitals were significantly less likely to respond (p < 0.005, p=0.01 respectively), however there were no differences by healthcare system membership or urban/rural location. 49% of respondents had the specialist term ASP or infectious disease (ID) in their title. Most hospitals (93.1%) had developed facility-specific treatment guidelines for specific inpatient conditions, often community-acquired pneumonia (85%), sepsis (81%), UTI (75%), and SSTI (69%). However, only 37% had formally assessed compliance with 1 or more of these guidelines. Also, 83% reported having a process for prospective audit and feedback, of which 43% do this 4–5 days per week. Similarly, 49% reported that they review all antimicrobials ordered. Recommendations are commonly given by the ASP pharmacist (69%) via some combination of telephone (78%), face-to-face (69%), text message (54%), and/or EHR alert (36%). Overall, 66% of hospitals had procedures in place to prevent inappropriate diagnostic testing for C. difficile, and 39% of hospitals had similar policies for urine specimens. Furthermore, >80% were routinely measuring days of therapy and CDI rates. Conclusions: Most hospitals have facility-specific treatment guidelines and measure CDI and days of therapy. Practices for active engagement with frontline staff in prospective audit and feedback vary widely. Greater understanding of barriers to assessing adherence to hospitals’ treatment guidelines is critical to improving this practice.
Funding: The Pew Charitable Trusts
Disclosures: None