Revitalizing the infection prevention workforce with a fellowship program for underrepresented groups.

Infection preventionist (IP) positions are difficult to fill, and future workforce shortages are anticipated. The IP field has less racial and ethnic diversity than the general nursing workforce or patient population. A targeted fellowship program for underrepresented groups allowed the recruitment and training of IPs while avoiding staffing shortages.

A qualitative evaluation of frontline clinician perspectives toward antibiotic stewardship programs.

OBJECTIVE: 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. DESIGN: Qualitative semistructured interviews. SETTING: The study was conducted in 2 large national healthcare systems including 7 hospitals in the Veterans' Health Administration and 4 hospitals in Intermountain Healthcare. PARTICIPANTS: We interviewed 157 participants. The current analysis includes 123 nonsteward clinicians: 47 physicians, 26 pharmacists, 29 nurses, and 21 hospital leaders. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: Further understanding these differing perspectives of ASP implementation will inform possible ways to improve ASP implementation across clinical roles.

Clinician Distress and Inappropriate Antibiotic Prescribing for Acute Respiratory Tract Infections: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The National Academy of Medicine's 2019 consensus study on clinician burnout identified a need for research evaluating the impact of clinician distress on health care quality. This study examined the association between clinician distress and the inappropriate use of antibiotic prescriptions for acute respiratory tract infections (RTIs) in adult outpatients. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using electronic health record visit data linked to annual wellness surveys administered to all clinicians at Boston Medical Center from May 4 to June 20, 2017, and June 5 to July 6, 2018. Included were outpatient visits occurring in Family Medicine, General Internal Medicine, or the emergency department in which an acute RTI for an otherwise healthy adult was listed as a primary diagnosis. The study examined the association of clinician depression, anxiety, and burnout with the visit-level odds of a clinician inappropriately prescribing an antibiotic for an acute RTI. RESULTS: Out of the 2,187 visits eligible for inclusion, 1,668 visits were included in the final sample. Overall, 33.8% and 51.0% of clinicians reported depression/anxiety and burnout symptoms, respectively. Each 1 standard deviation increase in a clinician's composite depression and anxiety score was associated with a 28% increase (odds ratio = 1.28, 95% confidence interval = 1.02-1.61) in the adjusted odds of an inappropriate antibiotic prescription for an acute RTI. Clinician burnout had no significant association with inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for acute RTIs. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that clinician depression and anxiety may be important indicators of health care quality in routine outpatient care.

Antibiotic therapy completion for injection drug use-associated infective endocarditis at a center with routine addiction medicine consultation: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Addiction medicine consultation and medications for opioid use disorder are shown to improve outcomes for patients hospitalized with infective endocarditis associated with injection drug use. Existing studies describe settings where addiction medicine consultation and initiation of medications for opioid use disorder are not commonplace, and rates of antibiotic therapy completion are infrequently reported. This retrospective study sought to quantify antibiotic completion outcomes in a setting where these interventions are routinely implemented. METHODS: Medical records of patients hospitalized with a diagnosis of bacteremia or infective endocarditis at an urban hospital between October 1, 2015 and December 31, 2017 were screened for active injection drug use within 6 months of hospitalization and infective endocarditis. Demographic and clinical parameters, receipt of antibiotics and medications for opioid use disorder, and details of re-hospitalizations within 1 year of discharge were recorded. RESULTS: Of 567 subjects screened for inclusion, 47 had infective endocarditis and active injection drug use. Addiction medicine consultation was completed for 41 patients (87.2%) and 23 (48.9%) received medications for opioid use disorder for the entire index admission. Forty-three patients (91.5%) survived to discharge, of which 28 (59.6%) completed antibiotic therapy. Twenty-nine survivors (67.4%) were re-hospitalized within 1 year due to infectious complications of injection drug use. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients admitted to a center with routine addiction medicine consultation and initiation of medications for opioid use disorder, early truncation of antibiotic therapy and re-hospitalization were commonly observed.

Provider views on rapid diagnostic tests and antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections: A mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory tract infections (RTIs) are often inappropriately treated with antibiotics. Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) have been developed with the aim of improving antibiotic prescribing but uptake remains low. The aim of this study was to examine provider knowledge, attitudes and behaviors regarding RDT use and their relationship to antibiotic prescribing decisions across multiple clinical departments in an urban safety-net hospital. METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods sequential explanatory study. Providers with prescribing authority (attending physicians, nurse practitioners and physician assistants) who had at least 20 RTI encounters from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2018. Eighty-five providers completed surveys and 16 participated in interviews. We conducted electronic surveys via RedCap from April to July 2019, followed by semi-structured individual interviews from October to December 2019, to ascertain knowledge, attitudes and behaviors related to RDT use and antibiotic prescribing. RESULTS: Survey findings indicated that providers felt knowledgeable about antibiotic prescribing guidelines. They reported high familiarity with the rapid streptococcus and rapid influenza tests. Familiarity with comprehensive respiratory panel PCR (RPP-respiratory panel PCR) and procalcitonin differed by clinical department. Qualitative interviews identified four main themes: providers trust their clinical judgment more than rapid test results; patient-provider relationships play an important role in prescribing decisions; there is patient demand for antibiotics and providers employ different strategies to address the demand and providers do not believe RDTs are implemented with sufficient education or evidence for clinical practice. CONCLUSION: Prescribers are knowledgeable about prescribing guidelines but often rely on clinical judgement to make final decisions. The utility of RDTs is specific to the type of RDT and the clinical department. Given the low familiarity and clinical utility of RPP and procalcitonin, providers may require additional education and these tests may need to be implemented differently based on clinical department.

Optimizing the Management of Uncomplicated Gram-Negative Bloodstream Infections: Consensus Guidance Using a Modified Delphi Process.

BACKGROUND: Guidance on the recommended durations of antibiotic therapy, the use of oral antibiotic therapy, and the need for repeat blood cultures remain incomplete for gram-negative bloodstream infections. We convened a panel of infectious diseases specialists to develop a consensus definition of uncomplicated gram-negative bloodstream infections to assist clinicians with management decisions. METHODS: Panelists, who were all blinded to the identity of other members of the panel, used a modified Delphi technique to develop a list of statements describing preferred management approaches for uncomplicated gram-negative bloodstream infections. Panelists provided level of agreement and feedback on consensus statements generated and refined them from the first round of open-ended questions through 3 subsequent rounds. RESULTS: Thirteen infectious diseases specialists (7 physicians and 6 pharmacists) from across the United States participated in the consensus process. A definition of uncomplicated gram-negative bloodstream infection was developed. Considerations cited by panelists in determining if a bloodstream infection was uncomplicated included host immune status, response to therapy, organism identified, source of the bacteremia, and source control measures. For patients meeting this definition, panelists largely agreed that a duration of therapy of ~7 days, transitioning to oral antibiotic therapy, and forgoing repeat blood cultures, was reasonable. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of professional guidelines for the management of uncomplicated gram-negative bloodstream infections, the consensus statements developed by a panel of infectious diseases specialists can provide guidance to practitioners for a common clinical scenario.

Survey of physician and pharmacist steward perceptions of their antibiotic stewardship programs.

Objective: 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. Design: Descriptive survey from a mixed-methods study. Setting: Two large national healthcare systems; the Veterans' Health Administration (VA) (n = 134 hospitals) and Intermountain Healthcare (IHC; n = 20 hospitals). Participants: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusions: Given the importance of ASPs, it may be beneficial for healthcare institutions to recruit and train individuals with a true interest in stewardship.

The state of antibiotic stewardship programs in 2021: The perspective of an experienced steward.

Recognition of antibiotic stewardship programs (ASPs) as essential components of quality health care has dramatically increased in the past decade. The value of ASPs has been further reinforced during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic because these programs were instrumental in monitoring antibiotic use, assessing emerging COVID-19 therapies, and coordinating implementation of monoclonal antibody infusions and vaccinations. ASPs are now required across hospital settings as a condition of participation for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and for accreditation by The Joint Commission. In the 2019 National Healthcare Safety Network annual survey, almost 89% of hospitals met the Seven Core Elements for ASPs defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. More than 61% of programs were co-led by physicians and pharmacists, evidence of the leadership role of both groups. ASPs employ many strategies to improve prescribing. Core interventions of preauthorization for targeted antibiotics, prospective audit and feedback, and development of local treatment guidelines have been supplemented with numerous emerging strategies. Diagnostic stewardship, optimizing duration of therapy, promoting appropriate conversion from intravenous to oral therapy, monitoring at transitions of care and hospital discharge, implementing stewardship initiatives in the outpatient setting, and increasing use of telemedicine are approaches being adopted across hospital settings. As a core function for medical facilities, ASP leaders must ensure that antibiotic use and ASP interventions promote optimal and equitable care. The urgency of success becomes progressively greater as complex patterns of antibiotic resistance continue to emerge, exacerbated by unpredictable factors such as a worldwide pandemic.

Assessment of Oropharyngeal Specimens for Discontinuation of Transmission-Based COVID-19 Precautions.

We compared oropharyngeal swab test performance with nasopharyngeal testing for discontinuation of transmission-based COVID-19 precautions. We performed a retrospective review of confirmed COVID-19-positive patients who received paired nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 tests for clearance from isolation from May 4, 2020, to May 26, 2020. Using nasopharyngeal swabs as the reference standard, we calculated the sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value of oropharyngeal swabs. We also calculated the kappa between the 2 tests. A total of 189 paired samples were collected from 74 patients. Oropharyngeal swab sensitivity was 38%, specificity was 87%, and negative predictive value was 70%. The kappa was 0.25. Our study suggests that oropharyngeal swabs are inferior to nasopharyngeal swabs for test-based clearance from COVID-19 isolation.

Early administration of interleukin-6 inhibitors for patients with severe COVID-19 disease is associated with decreased intubation, reduced mortality, and increased discharge.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this observational study was to determine the optimal timing of interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor (IL6ri) administration for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: Patients with COVID-19 were given an IL6ri (sarilumab or tocilizumab) based on iteratively reviewed guidelines. IL6ri were initially reserved for critically ill patients, but after review, treatment was liberalized to patients with lower oxygen requirements. Patients were divided into two groups: those requiring ≤45% fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) (termed stage IIB) and those requiring >45% FiO2 (termed stage III) at the time of IL6ri administration. The main outcomes were all-cause mortality, discharge alive from hospital, and extubation. RESULTS: A total of 255 COVID-19 patients were treated with IL6ri (149 stage IIB and 106 stage III). Patients treated in stage IIB had lower mortality than those treated in stage III (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08-0.74). Overall, 218 (85.5%) patients were discharged alive. Patients treated in stage IIB were more likely to be discharged (aHR 1.43, 95% CI 1.06-1.93) and were less likely to be intubated (aHR 0.43, 95% CI 0.24-0.79). CONCLUSIONS: IL6ri administration prior to >45% FiO2 requirement was associated with improved COVID-19 outcomes. This can guide clinical management pending results from randomized controlled trials.

Perspectives of Physician and Pharmacist Stewards on Successful Antibiotic Stewardship Program Implementation: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic stewardship programs (ASPs) are required at every hospital regardless of size. We conducted a qualitative study across different hospital settings to examine perspectives of physician and pharmacist stewards about the dynamics within their team and contextual factors that facilitate the success of their programs. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted in March-November 2018 with 46 ASP stewards, 30 pharmacists, and 16 physicians, from 39 hospitals within 2 large hospital systems. RESULTS: We identified 5 major themes: antibiotic stewards were enthusiastic about their role, committed to the goals of stewardship for their patients and as a public-health imperative, and energized by successful interventions; responsibilities of pharmacist and physician stewards are markedly different, and pharmacy stewards performed the majority of the day-to-day stewardship work; collaborative teamwork is important to improving care, the pharmacists and physicians supported each other, and pharmacists believed that having a strong physician leader was essential; provider engagement strategies are a critical component of stewardship, and recommendations must be communicated in a collegial manner that did not judge the provider competence, preferably through face-to-face interactions; and hospital leadership support for ASP goals and for protected time for ASP activities is critical for success. CONCLUSIONS: The physician-pharmacist team is essential for ASPs; most have pharmacists leading and performing day-to-day activities with physician support. Collaborative, persuasive approaches for ASP interventions were the norm. Stewards were careful not to criticize or judge inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. Further research should examine whether this persuasive approach undercuts provider appreciation of stewardship as a public health mandate.

Low Uptake of Rapid Diagnostic Tests for Respiratory Tract Infections in an Urban Safety Net Hospital.

BACKGROUND: Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) have been developed with the aim of providing accurate results in a timely manner. Despite this, studies report that provider uptake remains low. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of ambulatory, urgent care, and emergency department (ED) encounters at an urban safety net hospital with a primary diagnosis of an upper or lower respiratory tract infection (eg, bronchitis, pharyngitis, acute sinusitis) from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2018. We collected RDT type and results, antibiotics prescribed, demographic and clinical patient information, and provider demographics. RESULTS: RDT use was low; a test was performed at 29.5% of the 33 494 visits. The RDT most often ordered was the rapid Group A Streptococcus (GAS) test (n = 7352), predominantly for visits with a discharge diagnosis of pharyngitis (n = 5818). Though antibiotic prescription was more likely if the test was positive (relative risk [RR], 1.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.58-1.8), 92.46% of streptococcal pharyngitis cases with a negative test were prescribed an antibiotic. The Comprehensive Respiratory Panel (CRP) was ordered in 2498 visits; influenza was the most commonly detected pathogen. Physicians in the ED were most likely to order a CRP. Antibiotic prescription was lower if the CRP was not ordered compared with a negative CRP result (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.7-0.84). There was no difference in prescribing by CRP result (negative vs positive). CONCLUSIONS: RDTs are used infrequently in the outpatient setting, and impact on prescribing was inconsistent. Further work is needed to determine barriers to RDT use and to address potential solutions.

Disproportionate Exposure to Antibiotics in Children at Risk for Invasive Pneumococcal Disease: Potential for Emerging Resistance and Opportunity for Antibiotic Stewardship.

We compared antibiotic prescribing for children with and those without an underlying chronic condition associated with increased risk for invasive pneumococcal disease. Children with a chronic condition had significantly greater cumulative exposure to antibiotics and higher rates of prescriptions per person-year than those without a chronic condition; this population is at increased risk for the emergence of multidrug-resistant pathogens.

Inappropriate Antibiotic Prescribing for Acute Bronchitis in Children and Impact on Subsequent Episodes of Care and Treatment.

BACKGROUND: To examine whether inappropriate antibiotic treatment for an initial bout of acute bronchitis in childhood affects patterns of future healthcare utilization and antibiotic prescribing. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of children with at least 1 acute bronchitis episode, defined as the 14-day period after an acute bronchitis visit, born in 2008 and followed through 2015 in a nationally representative commercial claims database. We predicted the likelihood of returning for a subsequent acute bronchitis episode, and being prescribed an antibiotic as part of that episode, as a function of whether or not the child was prescribed an antibiotic as part of the first acute bronchitis episode controlling for patient, provider and practice characteristics. RESULTS: Children prescribed an antibiotic as part of their initial acute bronchitis episode were more likely both to have a subsequent acute bronchitis episode (hazard ratio = 1.23; 95% confidence interval: 1.17-1.30) and to be prescribed an antibiotic as part of that second episode (hazard ratio = 2.13; 95% confidence interval: 1.99-2.28) compared with children who were not prescribed as part of their first episode. Children diagnosed with asthma were more likely to experience a second visit for acute bronchitis, but less likely to receive an antibiotic as part of that second episode. CONCLUSIONS: Inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for a child's initial acute bronchitis episode of care predicted likelihood of subsequent acute bronchitis episodes and antibiotic prescriptions. Providers should consider the downstream effect of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for acute bronchitis in childhood.

How Do You Measure Up: Quality Measurement for Improving Patient Care and Establishing the Value of Infectious Diseases Specialists.

The shift from volume-based to value-based reimbursement has created a need for quantifying clinical performance of infectious diseases (ID) physicians. Nationally recognized ID specialty-specific quality measures will allow stakeholders, such as patients and payers, to determine the value of care provided by ID physicians and will promote clinical quality improvement. Few ID-specific measures have been developed; herein, we provide an overview of the importance of quality measurement for ID, discuss issues in quality measurement specific to ID, and describe standards by which candidate quality measures can be evaluated. If ID specialists recognize the need for quality measurement, then ID specialists can direct ID-related quality improvement, quantify the impact of ID physicians on patient outcomes, compare their performance to that of peers, and convey to stakeholders the value of the specialty.

Retrospective analysis of long-term gastrointestinal symptoms after Clostridium difficile infection in a nonelderly cohort.

Elderly patients and those with comorbid conditions are at high risk for poor outcomes after Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) but outcomes in a healthier, nonelderly population are not well described. We sought to investigate gastrointestinal diagnoses and CDI during hospitalizations in the 24 to 36 months after an initial episode of CDI in nonelderly patients in a cohort with an overall low prevalence of comorbid conditions. We performed a retrospective analysis of hospital admissions from 2010-2013 using the Truven MarketScan database of employment-based private insurance claims. Subjects <65 years of age and their adult dependents (> = 18 years old); a CDI diagnosis in 2011 (index date); at least 12 months of pre-index continuous enrollment; and 24-36 months of continuous post-index enrollment were included. The 12 months of each subject's enrollment prior to the index date for a CDI served as the reference period for the analyses of that subject's post-CDI time periods. Hospital claims during the follow-up period were evaluated for gastrointestinal diagnoses and/or CDI ICD-9 codes. The risk of gastrointestinal diagnoses was assessed using Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for a pre-specified set of baseline demographic and clinical factors. During 2011, 5,632 subjects with CDI met the inclusion criteria for our study. The risk of gastrointestinal diagnoses in patients with a CDI diagnostic code for the same admission was almost 8-fold higher 3 months post-CDI (hazard ratio (HR) = 7.56; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.97-19.19) than for subjects without CDI and remained statistically significant until month 24 (HR = 1.47; 95% CI = 1.04-2.08). After CDI, patients remained at risk for gastrointestinal symptoms with CDI for up to two years. There is an important, long-term healthcare burden after CDI in this population.

A Qualitative Study of the Real-world Experiences of Infectious Diseases Fellows Regarding Antibiotic Stewardship.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections are a major threat to public health, yet improper use of antibiotics remains high. Infectious Diseases (ID) fellows play a major role in antibiotic stewardship efforts, but there is little research on how they view stewardship activities. We performed a qualitative study to explore ID fellows' experiences and perspectives regarding their antibiotic stewardship training and their role as future antibiotic stewards. METHODS: We conducted 17 in-depth interviews with ID fellows across the country. The interviews were transcribed verbatim by the study team, and we used grounded theory to generate themes from these interviews. RESULTS: Fellows focused on concrete tasks of stewardship such as performing antibiotic approvals, didactic and case-based education, and interactions with other physicians and pharmacists. There was little focus on the broader public health relevance of antibiotic stewardship. Pharmacists, not ID physician leaders, were identified as fellows' primary resource for antibiotic teaching. Several fellows suggested that stewardship programs should be led by pharmacists. CONCLUSIONS: ID fellowship training is not successfully conveying the public health importance of antibiotic stewardship or the role of ID physicians as leaders of antibiotic stewardship programs. Fellows are more focused on concrete tasks related to stewardship. ID training programs and societies should consider developing robust curricula involving fellows in the operation of the stewardship program itself, not solely in antibiotic approvals, emphasizing aspects of the program such as complex problem solving that fellows find most compelling, and emphasizing the important role these programs serve in improving public health.