The Disproportionate Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic on Healthcare-Associated Infections in Community Hospitals: Need for Expanding the Infectious Disease Workforce.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic had a considerable impact on US healthcare systems, straining hospital resources, staff, and operations. However, a comprehensive assessment of the impact on healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) across different hospitals with varying level of infectious disease (ID) physician expertise, resources, and infrastructure is lacking. METHODS: This retrospective longitudinal multicenter cohort study included central-line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs), catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs), Clostridioides difficile infections (CDIs), and ventilator-associated events (VAEs) from 53 hospitals (academic and community) in Southeastern United States from 1 January 2018 to 31 March 2021. Segmented negative binomial regression generalized estimating equations models estimated changes in monthly incidence rates in the baseline (01/2018-02/2020) compared to the pandemic period (03/2020-03/2021, further divided into three pandemic phases). RESULTS: CLABSIs and VAEs increased by 24% and 34%, respectively, during the pandemic period. VAEs increased in all phases of the pandemic, while CLABSIs increased in later phases of the pandemic. CDI trend increased by 4.2% per month in the pandemic period. On stratifying the analysis by hospital characteristics, the impact of the pandemic on healthcare-associated infections was more significant in smaller sized and community hospitals. CAUTIs did not change significantly during the pandemic across all hospital types. CONCLUSIONS: CLABSIs, VAEs, and CDIs increased significantly during the pandemic, especially in smaller community hospitals, most of which lack ID physician expertise. Future efforts should focus on better understanding challenges faced by community hospitals, strengthening the infection prevention infrastructure, and expanding the ID workforce, particularly to community hospitals.

Evaluation of an Opt-Out Protocol for Antibiotic De-Escalation in Patients With Suspected Sepsis: A Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis guidelines recommend daily review to de-escalate or stop antibiotics in appropriate patients. This randomized, controlled trial evaluated an opt-out protocol to decrease unnecessary antibiotics in patients with suspected sepsis. METHODS: We evaluated non-intensive care adults on broad-spectrum antibiotics despite negative blood cultures at 10 US hospitals from September 2018 through May 2020. A 23-item safety check excluded patients with ongoing signs of systemic infection, concerning or inadequate microbiologic data, or high-risk conditions. Eligible patients were randomized to the opt-out protocol vs usual care. Primary outcome was post-enrollment antibacterial days of therapy (DOT). Clinicians caring for intervention patients were contacted to encourage antibiotic discontinuation using opt-out language. If continued, clinicians discussed the rationale for continuing antibiotics and de-escalation plans. To evaluate those with zero post-enrollment DOT, hurdle models provided 2 measures: odds ratio of antibiotic continuation and ratio of mean DOT among those who continued antibiotics. RESULTS: Among 9606 patients screened, 767 (8%) were enrolled. Intervention patients had 32% lower odds of antibiotic continuation (79% vs 84%; odds ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], .47-.98). DOT among those who continued antibiotics were similar (ratio of means, 1.06; 95% CI, .88-1.26). Fewer intervention patients were exposed to extended-spectrum antibiotics (36% vs 44%). Common reasons for continuing antibiotics were treatment of localized infection (76%) and belief that stopping antibiotics was unsafe (31%). Thirty-day safety events were similar. CONCLUSIONS: An antibiotic opt-out protocol that targeted patients with suspected sepsis resulted in more antibiotic discontinuations, similar DOT when antibiotics were continued, and no evidence of harm. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT03517007.

The Impact of Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services SEP-1 Core Measure Implementation on Antibacterial Utilization: A Retrospective Multicenter Longitudinal Cohort Study With Interrupted Time-Series Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The impact of the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock: Management Bundle (SEP-1) core measure on overall antibacterial utilization is unknown. METHODS: We performed a retrospective multicenter longitudinal cohort study with interrupted time-series analysis to determine the impact of SEP-1 implementation on antibacterial utilization and patient outcomes. All adult patients admitted to 26 hospitals between 1 October 2014 and 30 September 2015 (SEP-1 preparation period) and between 1 November 2015 and 31 October 2016 (SEP-1 implementation period) were evaluated for inclusion. The primary outcome was total antibacterial utilization, measured as days of therapy (DOT) per 1000 patient-days. RESULTS: The study cohort included 701 055 eligible patient admissions and 4.2 million patient-days. Overall antibacterial utilization increased 2% each month during SEP-1 preparation (relative rate [RR], 1.02 per month [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.00-1.04]; P = .02). Cumulatively, the mean monthly DOT per 1000 patient-days increased 24.4% (95% CI, 18.0%-38.8%) over the entire study period (October 2014-October 2016). The rate of sepsis diagnosis/1000 patients increased 2% each month during SEP-1 preparation (RR, 1.02 per month [95% CI, 1.00-1.04]; P = .04). The rate of all-cause mortality rate per 1000 patients decreased during the study period (RR for SEP-1 preparation, 0.95 [95% CI, .92-.98; P = .001]; RR for SEP-1 implementation, .98 [.97-1.00; P = .01]). Cumulatively, the monthly mean all-cause mortality rate/1000 patients declined 38.5% (95% CI, 25.9%-48.0%) over the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Announcement and implementation of the CMS SEP-1 process measure was associated with increased diagnosis of sepsis and antibacterial utilization and decreased mortality rate among hospitalized patients.

Effects of a Collaborative, Community Hospital Network for Antimicrobial Stewardship Program Implementation.

BACKGROUND: Individual hospitals may lack expertise, data resources, and educational tools to support antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASP). METHODS: We established a collaborative, consultative network focused on hospital ASP implementation. Services included on-site expert consultation, shared database for routine feedback and benchmarking, and educational programs. We performed a retrospective, longitudinal analysis of antimicrobial use (AU) in 17 hospitals that participated for at least 36 months during 2013-2018. ASP practice was assessed using structured interviews. Segmented regression estimated change in facility-wide AU after a 1-year assessment, planning, and intervention initiation period. Year 1 AU trend (1-12 months) and AU trend following the first year (13-42 months) were compared using relative rates (RR). Monthly AU rates were measured in days of therapy (DOT) per 1000 patient days for overall AU, specific agents, and agent groups. RESULTS: Analyzed data included over 2.5 million DOT and almost 3 million patient-days. Participating hospitals increased ASP-focused activities over time. Network-wide overall AU trends were flat during the first 12 months after network entry but decreased thereafter (RR month 42 vs month 13, 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI]: .91-.99). Large variation was seen in hospital-specific AU. Fluoroquinolone use was stable during year 1 and then dropped significantly. Other agent groups demonstrated a nonsignificant downward trajectory after year 1. CONCLUSIONS: Network hospitals increased ASP activities and demonstrated decline in AU over a 42-month period. A collaborative, consultative network is a unique model in which hospitals can access ASP implementation expertise to support long-term program growth.

Significant Regional Differences in Antibiotic Use Across 576 US Hospitals and 11 701 326 Adult Admissions, 2016-2017.

BACKGROUND: Quantifying the amount and diversity of antibiotic use in United States hospitals assists antibiotic stewardship efforts but is hampered by limited national surveillance. Our study aimed to address this knowledge gap by examining adult antibiotic use across 576 hospitals and nearly 12 million encounters in 2016-2017. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of patients aged ≥ 18 years discharged from hospitals in the Premier Healthcare Database between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2017. Using daily antibiotic charge data, we mapped antibiotics to mutually exclusive classes and to spectrum of activity categories. We evaluated relationships between facility and case-mix characteristics and antibiotic use in negative binomial regression models. RESULTS: The study included 11 701 326 admissions, totaling 64 064 632 patient-days, across 576 hospitals. Overall, patients received antibiotics in 65% of hospitalizations, at a crude rate of 870 days of therapy (DOT) per 1000 patient-days. By class, use was highest among ß-lactam/ß-lactamase inhibitor combinations, third- and fourth-generation cephalosporins, and glycopeptides. Teaching hospitals averaged lower rates of total antibiotic use than nonteaching hospitals (834 vs 957 DOT per 1000 patient-days; P < .001). In adjusted models, teaching hospitals remained associated with lower use of third- and fourth-generation cephalosporins and antipseudomonal agents (adjusted incidence rate ratio [95% confidence interval], 0.92 [.86-.97] and 0.91 [.85-.98], respectively). Significant regional differences in total and class-specific antibiotic use also persisted in adjusted models. CONCLUSIONS: Adult inpatient antibiotic use remains high, driven predominantly by broad-spectrum agents. Better understanding reasons for interhospital usage differences, including by region and teaching status, may inform efforts to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing.

Core Recommendations for Antifungal Stewardship: A Statement of the Mycoses Study Group Education and Research Consortium.

In recent years, the global public health community has increasingly recognized the importance of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) in the fight to improve outcomes, decrease costs, and curb increases in antimicrobial resistance around the world. However, the subject of antifungal stewardship (AFS) has received less attention. While the principles of AMS guidelines likely apply to stewarding of antifungal agents, there are additional considerations unique to AFS and the complex field of fungal infections that require specific recommendations. In this article, we review the literature on AMS best practices and discuss AFS through the lens of the global core elements of AMS. We offer recommendations for best practices in AFS based on a synthesis of this evidence by an interdisciplinary expert panel of members of the Mycoses Study Group Education and Research Consortium. We also discuss research directions in this rapidly evolving field. AFS is an emerging and important component of AMS, yet requires special considerations in certain areas such as expertise, education, interventions to optimize utilization, therapeutic drug monitoring, and data analysis and reporting.

MRSA nares swab is a more accurate predictor of MRSA wound infection compared with clinical risk factors in emergency department patients with skin and soft tissue infections.

OBJECTIVES: Skin and soft tissue infections (SSTI) caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) are prevalent in the emergency department (ED). We determined whether MRSA nasal carriage better identifies patients with MRSA wound infection than clinical risk factors or emergency medicine (EM) provider's choice of discharge prescriptions. METHODS: Adult patients presenting to a large academic medical centre ED in the USA with SSTI between May 2010 and November 2011 were screened. Research assistants administered a questionnaire regarding MRSA risk factors, and MRSA nares swab PCR testing, wound culture results and information on antibiotics prescribed at discharge were collected. Measures of classification accuracy for nares swab, individual risk factors and physician's prescription for MRSA coverage were compared with gold standard wound culture. RESULTS: During the study period, 116 patients with SSTI had both wound cultures and nares swabs for MRSA. S. aureus was isolated in 59.5%, most often MRSA (75.4%). Thirty patients (25.9%) had a positive MRSA nares swab and culture for a sensitivity of 57.7% and specificity of 92.2%. Positive predictive value (PPV) for MRSA nares swab was 85.7% and positive likelihood ratio was 7.4, while negative predictive value was 72.8% and negative likelihood ratio 0.5. None of the individual risk factors nor EM provider's prescription for MRSA coverage had a PPV or positive likelihood ratio higher than nares swabs. CONCLUSIONS: MRSA nares swab is a more accurate predictor of MRSA wound infection compared with clinical risk factors or EM provider's choice of antibiotics. MRSA nares swab may be a useful tool in the ED.

Expert Consensus on Metrics to Assess the Impact of Patient-Level Antimicrobial Stewardship Interventions in Acute-Care Settings.

Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) positively impact patient care, but metrics to assess ASP impact are poorly defined. We used a modified Delphi approach to select relevant metrics for assessing patient-level interventions in acute-care settings for the purposes of internal program decision making. An expert panel rated 90 candidate metrics on a 9-point Likert scale for association with 4 criteria: improved antimicrobial prescribing, improved patient care, utility in targeting stewardship efforts, and feasibility in hospitals with electronic health records. Experts further refined, added, or removed metrics during structured teleconferences and re-rated the retained metrics. Six metrics were rated >6 in all criteria: 2 measures of Clostridium difficile incidence, incidence of drug-resistant pathogens, days of therapy over admissions, days of therapy over patient days, and redundant therapy events. Fourteen metrics rated >6 in all criteria except feasibility were identified as targets for future development.

Antimicrobial stewardship: philosophy versus practice.

To promote the judicious use of antimicrobials and preserve their usefulness in the setting of growing resistance, a number of policy-making bodies and professional societies have advocated the development of antimicrobial stewardship programs. Although these programs have been implemented at many institutions in the United States, their impact has been difficult to measure. Current recommendations advocate the use of both outcome and process measures as metrics for antimicrobial stewardship. Although patient outcome metrics have the greatest impact on the quality of care, the literature shows that antimicrobial use and costs are the indicators measured most frequently by institutions to justify the effectiveness of antimicrobial stewardship programs. The measurement of more meaningful outcomes has been constrained by difficulties inherent to these measures, lack of funding and resources, and inadequate study designs. Antimicrobial stewardship can be made more credible by refocusing the antimicrobial review process to target specific disease states, reassessing the usefulness of current metrics, and integrating antimicrobial stewardship program initiatives into institutional quality and safety efforts.

Vital signs: improving antibiotic use among hospitalized patients.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotics are essential to effectively treat many hospitalized patients. However, when antibiotics are prescribed incorrectly, they offer little benefit to patients and potentially expose them to risks for complications, including Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) and antibiotic-resistant infections. Information is needed on the frequency of incorrect prescribing in hospitals and how improved prescribing will benefit patients. METHODS: A national administrative database (MarketScan Hospital Drug Database) and CDC's Emerging Infections Program (EIP) data were analyzed to assess the potential for improvement of inpatient antibiotic prescribing. Variability in days of therapy for selected antibiotics reported to the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) antimicrobial use option was computed. The impact of reducing inpatient antibiotic exposure on incidence of CDI was modeled using data from two U.S. hospitals. RESULTS: In 2010, 55.7% of patients discharged from 323 hospitals received antibiotics during their hospitalization. EIP reviewed patients' records from 183 hospitals to describe inpatient antibiotic use; antibiotic prescribing potentially could be improved in 37.2% of the most common prescription scenarios reviewed. There were threefold differences in usage rates among 26 medical/surgical wards reporting to NHSN. Models estimate that the total direct and indirect effects from a 30% reduction in use of broad-spectrum antibiotics will result in a 26% reduction in CDI. CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic prescribing for inpatients is common, and there is ample opportunity to improve use and patient safety by reducing incorrect antibiotic prescribing. Implications for Public Health: Hospital administrators and health-care providers can reduce potential harm and risk for antibiotic resistance by implementing formal programs to improve antibiotic prescribing in hospitals.

Five steps to high quality antimicrobial stewardship research.

The escalating threat of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) necessitates impactful, reproducible, and scalable antimicrobial stewardship strategies. This review addresses the critical need to enhance the quality of antimicrobial stewardship intervention research. We propose five considerations for authors planning and evaluating antimicrobial stewardship initiatives. Antimicrobial stewards should consider the following mnemonic ABCDE: (A) plan Ahead using implementation science; (B) Be clear and thoroughly describe the intervention by using the TidIER checklist; (C) Use a Checklist to comprehensively report study components; (D) Select a study Design carefully; and (E) Assess Effectiveness and implementation by selecting meaningful outcomes. Incorporating these recommendations will help strengthen the evidence base of antimicrobial stewardship literature and support optimal implementation of strategies to mitigate AMR.

Harvesting the low-hanging fruit? Comparative assessment of intravenous to oral route antimicrobial conversion policy implementation.

Policies that promote conversion of antibiotics from intravenous to oral route administration are considered "low hanging fruit" for hospital antimicrobial stewardship programs. We developed a simple metric based on digestive days of therapy divided by total days of therapy for targeted agents and a method for hospital comparisons. External comparisons may help identify opportunities for improving prospective implementation.

The impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) response on hospital infection prevention programs and practices in the southeastern United States.

Initial assessments of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) preparedness revealed resource shortages and variations in infection prevention policies across US hospitals. Our follow-up survey revealed improvement in resource availability, increase in testing capacity, and uniformity in infection prevention policies. Most importantly, the survey highlighted an increase in staffing shortages and use of travel nursing.

Use of leading practices in US hospital antimicrobial stewardship programs.

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.

Review of antibiotic prescriptions as part of antimicrobial stewardship programmes: results from a pilot implementation at two provincial-level hospitals in Viet Nam.

Objectives: To investigate the feasibility of retrospective prescription-based review and to describe the antibiotic prescribing patterns to provide information for an antimicrobial stewardship programme in Viet Nam. Methods: This study was conducted in two provincial-level hospitals between February and April 2020. Reviews were done by a clinical team consisting of leaders/senior doctors of each ward to assess the optimal level (optimal/adequate/suboptimal/inadequate/not assessable) of antibiotic prescriptions. Mixed-effect logistic regression at prescription level was used to explore factors associated with optimal antibiotic use. Results: The retrospective prescription-based review was accepted by study clinical wards with varied levels of participants. One hundred and eighty-three patients (326 prescriptions) in Hospital 1 and 200 patients (344 prescriptions) in Hospital 2 were included. One hundred and nineteen of the 326 (36.5%) antibiotic prescriptions in Hospital 1 and 51/344 (14.8%) antibiotic prescriptions in Hospital 2 were determined to be optimal by the review teams. The number of adequate antibiotic prescriptions were 179/326 (54.9%) and 178 (51.7%) in Hospital 1 and Hospital 2, respectively. The optimal level was lower for surgical prophylaxis antibiotics than for empirical therapy (OR = 0.06; 95% CI 0.01-0.45), higher in prescriptions in the ICU (OR = 12.00; 95% CI 3.52-40.92), higher in definitive antibiotic therapy (OR = 48.12; 95% CI 7.17-322.57) and higher in those with an indication recorded in medical records (OR = 3.46; 95% CI 1.13-10.62). Conclusions: This study provides evidence on the feasibility of retrospective prescription-based review, with adaption to the local situation. High and varying levels of optimal antibiotic prescriptions in clinical wards in hospitals were observed in Viet Nam.

Use of Contact Networks to Estimate Potential Pathogen Risk Exposure in Hospitals.

Importance: Person-to-person contact is important for the transmission of health care-associated pathogens. Quantifying these contact patterns is crucial for modeling disease transmission and understanding routes of potential transmission. Objective: To generate and analyze the mixing matrices of hospital patients based on their contacts within hospital units. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this quality improvement study, mixing matrices were created using a weighted contact network of connected hospital patients, in which contact was defined as occupying the same hospital unit for 1 day. Participants included hospitalized patients at 299 hospital units in 24 hospitals in the Southeastern United States that were part of the Duke Antimicrobial Stewardship Outreach Network between January 2015 and December 2017. Analysis was conducted between October 2021 and February 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: The mixing matrices of patients for each hospital unit were assessed using age, Elixhauser Score, and a measure of antibiotic exposure. Results: Among 1 549 413 hospitalized patients (median [IQR] age, 44 [26-63] years; 883 580 [56.3%] women) in 299 hospital units, some units had highly similar patterns across multiple hospitals, although the number of patients varied to a great extent. For most of the adult inpatient units, frequent mixing was observed for older adult groups, while outpatient units (eg, emergency departments and behavioral health units) showed mixing between different age groups. Most units mixing patterns followed the marginal distribution of age; however, patients aged 90 years or older with longer lengths of stay created a secondary peak in some medical wards. From the mixing matrices by Elixhauser Score, mixing between patients with relatively higher comorbidity index was observed in intensive care units. Mixing matrices by antibiotic spectrum, a 4-point scale based on priority for antibiotic stewardship programs, resulted in 6 major distinct patterns owing to the variation of the type of antibiotics used in different units, namely those dominated by a single antibiotic spectrum (narrow, broad, or extended), 1 pattern spanning all antibiotic spectrum types and 2 forms of narrow- and extended-spectrum dominant exposure patterns (an emergency room where patients were exposed to one type of antibiotic or the other and a pediatric ward where patients were exposed to both types). Conclusions and Relevance: This quality improvement study found that the mixing patterns of patients both within and between hospitals followed broadly expected patterns, although with a considerable amount of heterogeneity. These patterns could be used to inform mathematical models of health care-associated infections, assess the appropriateness of both models and policies for smaller community hospitals, and provide baseline information for the design of interventions that rely on altering patient contact patterns, such as practices for transferring patients within hospitals.

Identifying context-specific domains for assessing antimicrobial stewardship programmes in Asia: protocol for a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) is an important strategy to control antimicrobial resistance. Resources are available to provide guidance for design and implementation of AMS programmes, however these may have limited applicability in resource-limited settings including those in Asia. This scoping review aims to identify context-specific domains and items for the development of a healthcare facility (HCF)-level tool to guide AMS implementation in Asia. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This review is the first step in a larger project to assess AMS implementation, needs and gaps in Asia. We will employ a deductive qualitative approach to identify locally appropriate domains and items of AMS implementation guided by Nilsen and Bernhardsson's contextual dimensions. This process is also informed by discussions from a technical advisory group coordinated by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to develop an AMS HCF-level assessment tool for low-income and middle-income countries. We will review English-language documents that discuss HCF-level implementation, including those describing frameworks, components/elements or recommendations for design, implementation or assessment globally and specific to Asia. We have performed the search in August-September 2021 including general electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Google Scholar), region-specific databases, national action plans, grey literature sources and reference lists to identify eligible documents. Country-specific documents will be restricted to countries in three subregions: South Asia, East Asia and Southeast Asia. Codes and themes will be derived through a content analysis, classified following the predefined context dimensions and used for developing domains and items of the assessment tool. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Results from this review will feed into our stepwise process for developing a context-specific HCF-level assessment tool for AMS programmes to assess the implementation status, identify intervention opportunities and monitor progress over time. The process will be done in consultation with local stakeholders, the end-users of the generated knowledge.