SHEA Research Network Research Articles

Operationalizing an adverse event detection surveillance system to support antimicrobial stewardship activities: perceptions and insights from the SHEA research network.

A surveillance system for measuring patient-level antimicrobial adverse drug events (ADE) may support stewardship activities, however, design and implementation questions remain. In this national survey, stewardship experts favored simple, laboratory-based ADE definitions although there were tensions between feasibility, ability to identify attribution without chart review, and importance of specific ADE.

System infection prevention in hospital networks in the United States-an SHEA research network inquiry into operational characteristics and current challenges.

A 54-question survey about System Healthcare Infection Prevention Programs (SHIPPs) was sent out to SHEA Research Network participants in August 2023. Thirty-eight United States-based institutions responded (38/93, 41%), of which 23 have SHIPPs. We found heterogeneity in the structure, staffing, and resources for system infection prevention (IP) programs.

System infection prevention in hospital networks – a SHEA research network survey

Background: Hospitals are increasingly consolidating into networks and integrating infection prevention (IP) into system infection prevention programs (SIPP). Very little has been published about these programs. This survey sheds light on the current state of SIPPs. Methods: We used the survey generator Alchemer.com for setting up the questionnaire, and tested a beta version among peers. The final version was sent out to SHEA Research Network participants in August 2023. Raw data was compiled and analyzed. Results: Forty institutions responded (40/104, 38%), of which 25 (63%) had SIPPs. These SIPPS reported health systems with a median of 4.5 acute care hospitals (range, 1-33); 16 SIPPS reported a median of 2 critical access hospitals (range, 1-8); 4 SIPPs reported 1-3 LTACHs, and 6 SIPPS reported a median of 1.5 nursing homes. All except 3 (88%) contained an academic center; 48% (11/23) of the U.S. based programs operate in multiple states. Four programs have been in place >20 years, four < 2 years, and the remainder a median of 8 years (range, 2-18). Physician directors also have clinical (20/25, 80%), teaching (19/25, 76%), research (15/25, 60%), antimicrobial stewardship (8/25, 32%), quality (8/25, 32%), and/or patient safety (5/25, 20%) roles. Seventeen (68%) report having a written job description. Nineteen (76%) report having an infection preventionist in a system IP director role; only 7/25 (28%) have a dedicated system IP team that operates independent of individual hospitals. Sixteen (64%) report administrative support, 10/25 (40%) have a data manager/analyst, and 4/25 (16%) include IT expert or programmer support. 15/25 (60%) report having done a formal system-wide IP needs assessment. While 16/25 (64%) have some automation in HAI surveillance (predominantly using Bugsy [Epic] or Theradoc [Premier]), while only 5/25 (20%) run fully automated surveillance. 10/25 (40%) have implemented centralized surveillance. 12/25 (48%) have “system IP policies” that are hierarchically above individual site policies. The biggest challenges appear to be gaps in 1) clear governing structure, 2) communication, 3) consistent staffing, 4) data management support, and 5) dedicated, empowered IP expert FTEs. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first U.S. survey to explore present-day system infection prevention. In this sample of hospital networks, we found heterogeneity in the structure, staffing and resources for system IP with significant opportunities for improvement. In this era of healthcare consolidation, our findings highlight the urgent need to more clearly delineate and support system IP needs in order to enhance their functionality.

Bundle Implementation to Prevent Surgical Site Infections - A Study of SRN Hospitals

Background: Guidelines recommend bundles with multiple infection control elements to prevent surgical site infections (SSI). Although effective in multiple research studies, little is known about the implementation of such complex bundles in the real-world clinical setting. Methods: A survey was distributed to the SHEA Research Network (SRN) hospitals during November 2022 – December 2023, to assess processes related to the implementation of SSI prevention bundles in colorectal surgery. Results: Of the 93 US and international hospitals within SRN, 49 completed the survey (53% response rate). The mean volume of colorectal surgeries per year was 377 (median 400). Figure 1 shows the individual elements of SSI prevention bundle reported as consistently used in most surgeries. There were no significant differences between hospitals with high vs. low volume (cut-off 400 surgeries), except for wound protectors or retractors, more likely to be used in high-volume hospitals (P = 0.047). A formal process for auditing adherence was reported by 71% of respondents for antibiotic prophylaxis, and 51% for skin prep, with the remaining elements audited < 50% of the time. Feedback of audited adherence to surgeons occurred < 50% of the time for all bundle elements, except antibiotic prophylaxis (59%). Table 1 shows the most common barriers reported as either successfully mitigated or still persistent at the time of the survey. High-volume hospitals were more likely to report persistent clinicians’ low bundle adherence (P = 0.016) and inadequate bundle adherence audit and feedback (P = 0.0016). Conclusion: Implementation of guideline-recommended colorectal SSI Prevention bundles remains highly variable. Further research aiming to develop strategies that optimize implementation and adherence is needed.

Perspectives and Awareness of Environmental Sustainability in the Infection Prevention and Control Community Nationally

Background: Healthcare contributes significantly to waste production and greenhouse gas emissions. This became especially apparent during the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet there is modest recognition of this issue, particularly within decision-making in Infection Prevention and Control (IPC). The aim of our study was to gauge general knowledge and attitudes of hospital epidemiologists (HEs) and infection preventionists (IPs) around the intersection of environmental sustainability and IPC, and to identify related institutional practices. Methods: An online survey, composed of ten questions related to environmental sustainability in IPC, was created and emailed to members of the SHEA Research Network (SRN), a national consortium of healthcare facilities collaborating on IPC research, from August - October 2023. Survey answers were collated via Redcap© and descriptive results were obtained. Results: Forty-two individuals (33 HEs, 7 directors of IPC, and 2 IPs) from unique institutions completed the survey. Thirty (71.4%) were from academic medical centers, 5 (11.9%) were from VA medical centers and 7 (16.7%) were from community hospitals. Over half of participants correctly estimated the amount of waste and carbon emissions produced annually by the US healthcare system (6 million tons and 8.5% of national emissions, respectively). However, only 42.9% considered environmental sustainability concerns important or very important when making IPC decisions. Fifteen (34.9%) had an environmental sustainability committee at their institution and of these, 8 had an established relationship with the IPC department. The most common techniques to promote sustainability amongst institutions were water/energy conservation (59.5%), reusable personal protective equipment (52.4%) and Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification (47.6%). When asked which efforts they would support at their institution, 28.6% would eliminate the use of single-use endoscopes and one third would avoid use of ethylene oxide for sterilization. In deciding whether to support environmental sustainability measures, key considerations participants articulated were patient safety concerns, knowledge about effectiveness and costs, and administrative support. Conclusion: Although there is growing awareness around the contribution of the healthcare industry to carbon emissions and waste production, IPC professionals have not yet universally adopted measures to promote environmental sustainability. In our survey, many participants acknowledged the importance of balancing patient safety and sustainability concerns. Our study demonstrates the need for more research and education to inform decisions around environmentally sustainable efforts in IPC that also preserve patient safety. Additionally, professional and regulatory bodies must acknowledge and promote the importance of environmental sustainability in IPC decision-making.

Monitoring health disparities in healthcare-associated infection surveillance: A Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) Research Network (SRN) Survey.

We investigated whether and how infection prevention programs monitor for health disparities as part of healthcare-associated infection (HAI) surveillance through a survey of healthcare epidemiology leaders. Most facilities are not assessing for disparities in HAI rates. Professional society and national guidance should focus on addressing this gap.

Antibiotic practice and stewardship in the management of neutropenic fever: A survey of US institutions

Background: Neutropenic fever management decisions are complex and result in prolonged duration of broad-spectrum antibiotics. Strategies for antibiotic stewardship in this context have been studied, including de-escalation of antibiotics prior to resolution of neutropenia, with unclear implementation. Here, we present the first survey study to describe real-world neutropenic fever management practices in US healthcare institutions, with particular emphasis on de-escalation strategies after initiation of broad-spectrum antibiotics. Methods: Using REDCap, we conducted a survey of US healthcare institutions through the SHEA Research Network (SRN). Questions pertained to antimicrobial prophylaxis and supportive care in the management of oncology patients and neutropenic fever management (including specific antimicrobial choices and clinical scenarios). Hematologic malignancy hospitalization (2020) and bone-marrow transplantation (2016–2020) volumes were obtained from CMS and Health Resources & Services Administration databases, respectively. Results: Overall, 23 complete responses were recorded (response rate, 35.4%). Collectively, these entities account for ~11.0% of hematologic malignancy hospitalizations and 13.3% bone marrow transplantations nationwide. Of 23 facilities, 19 had institutional guidelines for neutropenic fever management and 18 had institutional guidelines for prophylaxis, with similar definitions for neutropenic fever. Firstline treatment universally utilized antipseudomonal broad-spectrum IV antibiotics (20 of 23 use cephalosporin, 3 of 23 use penicillin agent, and no respondents use carbapenem). Fluoroquinolone prophylaxis was common for leukemia induction patients (18 of 23) but was mixed for bone-marrow transplantation (10 of 23). We observed significant heterogeneity in treatment decisions. For stable neutropenic fever patients with no clinical source of infection identified, 13 of 23 respondents continued IV antibiotics until ANC (absolute neutrophil count) recovery. The remainder had criteria for de-escalation back to prophylaxis prior to this (eg, a fever-free period). Respondents were more willing to de-escalate prior to ANC recovery in patients with identified clinical sources (14 of 23 de-escalations in patients with pneumonia) or microbiological sources (15 of 23 de-escalations in patients with bacteremia) after dedicated treatment courses. In free-text responses, several respondents described opportunities for more systemic de-escalation for antimicrobial stewardship in these scenarios. Conclusions: Our results illustrate the real-world management of neutropenic fever in US hospitals, including initiation of therapy, prophylaxis, and treatment duration. We found significant heterogeneity in de-escalation of empiric antibiotics relative to ANC recovery, highlighting a need for more robust evidence for and adoption of this practice.Disclosures: None

3D printers in hospitals: Reducing bacterial contamination on 3D-printed material

Background: COVID-19 has presented hospitals with unique challenges. An SHEA Research Network survey showed that 40% reported “limited” or worse levels of personal protective equipment (PPE) and that 13% were self-producing PPE to address those deficits, including 3D-printed items. However, we do not know how efficiently, if at all, 3D-printed materials can be disinfected. Additionally, 2 filaments, PLACTIVE and PUREMENT, claim to be antimicrobial; they use copper nanocomposites and silver ions to reduce bacterial populations. We assessed how PLACTIVE and PUREMENT may be contaminated and how well they reduce contamination, and how readily polylactic acid (PLA), a standard 3D-printed material, may be disinfected. Methods: We grew methicillin-resistant and -susceptible Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, and Klebsiella pneumoniae on 3D-printed disks and conducted bacterial survival assays to determine whether bacteria grow on PLA, PLACTIVE, and PUREMENT. We performed a time series (with 3- and 24-hour dry times) followed by serial dilutions to attain colony-forming unit (CFU) averages for each strain per disk. To determine whether 3D-printed material can be cleaned, we used 70% EtOH on PLA only. We conducted the same time series followed by a disinfectant time series (with dry times 30 seconds, 2.5, minutes, 5 minutes, and 10 minutes). Again, serial dilutions were performed to attain the PLA CFU averages with disinfectant. The CFU averages from the control group (PLA) and testing group (PLACTIVE and PUREMENT) were compared to see how well the antimicrobial material decreased bacterial load. We also compared the CFU averages of PLA with and without disinfectant to see how well 70% EtOH decreased bacterial load. Results: 3D-printed material is readily contaminated with bacteria common in hospitals and can sustain that contamination. Antimicrobial materials, PLACTIVE and PUREMENT, had lower levels of bacterial contamination when compared to PLA. However, disinfected disks had lower overall CFU averages than those that were not, but the level of disinfection was variable and bacterial populations recovered hours after disinfection application. Conclusions: Proper disinfection and using appropriate 3D-printed materials are essential to limiting bacterial contamination. 3D printers and their products can be invaluable for hospitals, especially when supplies are low and healthcare worker safety is paramount. Environmental services should be made aware of the presence of antimicrobial 3D-printed materials, and patients should be discouraged from printing their own items for use in hospital environments.Disclosures: None

Characterizing burnout among healthcare epidemiologists in the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic: A study of the SHEA Research Network.

A multisite research team proposed a survey to assess burnout among healthcare epidemiologists. Anonymous surveys were disseminated to eligible staff at SRN facilities. Half of the respondents were experiencing burnout. Staffing shortages were a key stressor. Allowing healthcare epidemiologists to provide guidance without directly enforcing policies may improve burnout.

Monitoring disparities in healthcare-associated infection surveillance: A SHEA Research Network (SRN) Survey

Background: Inequities are seen in many health-related outcomes, and systemic and structural factors result in inequitable care based on social determinants of health (SDOH). However, whether disparities exist specifically in healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) based on these factors has not been well described. Furthermore, there are no national standards on whether information related to equity and SDOH should be included in HAI surveillance and how such information could be used. Methods: We surveyed US members of the SHEA Research Network (SRN), a consortium of healthcare facilities with leaders interested in healthcare epidemiology and infection prevention, via an online REDCap survey from October to December 2021. Results: Of the 68 eligible US SRN facilities, 28 (41%) responded. Among them, 27 institutions provide direct patient care and were analyzed. Of these 27 facilities, 8 (30%) collected data regarding variables related to equity including language for care, race or ethnicity, insurance status, and other. Of these faclilities, 38% are collecting but not otherwise using this information; other facilities use this information for a variety of reporting and intervention purposes (Fig. 2). Only 3 facilities (11%) analyzed whether disparities exist in any HAI rates. The most common barrier to collecting SDOH information is that facilities have not considered doing this work (Fig. 3). Of the 15 facilities not yet undertaking such work, 10 (67%) were interested in doing so. Specific recommendations about how to operationalize such collection are needed (Table 1). Conclusions: Most institutions in this sample are not collecting data that would allow for assessment of disparities in the rates of HAIs; however, there is interest in doing so. A minority of early adopter facilities are assessing whether disparities exist and are designing interventions. National guidance can play a key role in standardizing the collection of this information and translating early findings to identify and subsequently improve disparities within HAIs.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None

41. Assessing Past vs Present COVID-19 Infection: A Survey of Criteria for Discontinuing Precautions in Asymptomatic Patients

BackgroundCOVID-19 patients can remain positive by PCR-testing for several months. Pre-admission or pre-procedure testing can identify recovered asymptomatic patients who may no longer be contagious but would require precautions according to current CDC recommendations (10 days). This can result in unintended consequences, including procedure delays or transfer to appropriate care (e.g., psychiatric or post-trauma patients requiring admission to COVID-19 units instead of psychiatric or rehabilitation facilities, respectively). MethodsWe conducted a structured survey of healthcare epidemiologists and infection prevention experts from the SHEA Research Network between March-April, 2021. The 14-question survey, presented a series of COVID-19 PCR+ asymptomatic patient case scenarios and asked respondents if (1) they would consider the case recovered and not infectious, (2) if they have cleared precautions in such cases, and if so, (3) how many transmission events occurred after discontinuing precautions. The survey used one or a combination of 5 criteria: history of COVID-19 symptoms, history of exposure to a household member with COVID-19, COVID-19 PCR cycle threshold (CT), and IgG serology. Percentages were calculated among respondents for each question.ResultsAmong 60 respondents, 56 (93%) were physicians, 51 (86%) were hospital epidemiologists, and 46 (77%) had >10y infection prevention experience. They represented facilities that cumulatively cared for >29,000 COVID-19 cases; 46 (77%) were academic, and 42 (69%) were large ( >400 beds). One-third to one-half would consider an incidentally found PCR+ case as recovered based on solo criteria, particularly those with two consecutive high CTs or COVID IgG positivity recovered (53-55%) (Table 1). When combining two criteria, half to four-fifths of respondents deemed PCR+ cases to be recovered (Table 2). Half of those had used those criteria to clear precautions (45-64%) and few to none experienced a subsequent transmission event resulting from clearance. ConclusionThe majority of healthcare epidemiologists consider a combination of clinical and diagnostic criteria as recovered and many have used these to clear precautions without high numbers of transmission. Disclosures Shruti K. Gohil, MD, MPH, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Co-Investigator in studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Molnycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Co-Investigator in studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Stryker (Sage) (Other Financial or Material Support, Co-Investigator in studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products) Deborah S. Yokoe, MD, MPH, Nothing to disclose Stuart H. Cohen, MD, Seres (Research Grant or Support) Jonathan Grein, MD, Gilead (Other Financial or Material Support, Speakers fees) Richard Platt, MD, MSc, Medline (Research Grant or Support, Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals received contributed antiseptic product) Susan S. Huang, MD, MPH, Medline (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Molnlycke (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Stryker (Sage) (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)Xttrium (Other Financial or Material Support, Conducted studies in which participating hospitals and nursing homes received contributed antiseptic and cleaning products)

Prevention practices for nonventilator hospital-acquired pneumonia: A survey of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) Research Network (SRN).

Prevention practices for nonventilator hospital-acquired pneumonia: A survey of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) Research Network (SRN).

Use of diagnostic and antimicrobial stewardship practices to improve Clostridioides difficile testing among SHEA Research Network hospitals.

We surveyed acute-care hospitals on strategies to reduce inappropriate C. difficile testing and treatment of colonized patients. Decision support during C. difficile test ordering was common, but "hard stops" to prevent placement of inappropriate orders and active intervention of antimicrobial stewardship programs on positive C. difficile test reports were infrequent.

Interfacility transfer communication of multidrug-resistant organism colonization or infection status: Practices and barriers in the acute-care setting.

To describe interfacility transfer communication (IFTC) methods for notification of multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) status in a diverse sample of acute-care hospitals. Cross-sectional survey. Hospitals within the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) Research Network (SRN). SRN members completed an electronic survey on protocols and methods for IFTC. We assessed differences in IFTC frequency, barriers, and perceived benefit by presence of an IFTC protocol. Among 136 hospital representatives who were sent the survey, 54 (40%) responded, of whom 72% reported having an IFTC protocol in place. The presence of a protocol did not differ significantly by hospital size, academic affiliation, or international status. Of those with IFTC protocols, 44% reported consistent notification of MDRO status (>75% of the time) to receiving facilities, as opposed to 13% from those with no IFTC protocol (P = .04). Respondents from hospitals with IFTC protocols reported significantly fewer barriers to communication compared to those without (2.8 vs 4.3; P = .03). Overall, however, most respondents (56%) reported a lack of standardization in communication. Presence of an IFTC protocol did not affect whether respondents perceived IFTC protocols as having a significant impact on infection prevention or antimicrobial stewardship. Most respondents reported having an IFTC protocol, which was associated with reduced communication barriers at transfer. Standardization of protocols and clarity about expectations for sending and receipt of information related to MDRO status may facilitate IFTC and promote appropriate and timely infection prevention practices.

621. Reporting Behaviors and Perceptions Towards the National Healthcare Safety Network Antimicrobial Use (AU) and Antimicrobial Resistance (AR) Options

BackgroundAntibiotic use (AU) and antibiotic resistance (AR; AUR) reporting to National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) is suboptimal by US hospitals. The Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists (SIDP) and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) conducted a survey of their membership to 1) Identify characteristics of US health systems that report AUR data 2) Determine how NHSN AUR data are used by health systems and 3) Identify barriers to AUR reporting.MethodsAn anonymous survey was posted on SurveyMonkey from 1/21- 2/21/2020 and links were emailed to SIDP and SHEA Research Network members. Data were analyzed in Excel and RStudio. Respondent and hospital data were reported as frequencies and percentages. Fisher’s Exact test was used to compare survey responses from NHSN AUR reporters to non-reporters.ResultsA total of 238 individuals from 43 states responded to our survey. Respondents were primarily pharmacists (84%), from urban (45%), non-profit medical centers (80%) with >250 beds (65%). 62% of respondents reported to the AU option while 19% reported to the AR option. Respondents not using software for local AU or AR tracking were less likely than those using any software for local tracking to report to AU (19% vs 64%) and AR (2% vs 30%) options (P< 0.0001). Among AU and AR reporters 41% and 54% used clinical decision support software to aggregate compile data for upload while 54% and 38% used their electronic health record, and 5% and 8% used another method. Over half of AU (56%) and AR (51%) reporters upload data manually. Regular use of the NHSN data analysis tools was reported by 36% and 9% of those reporting AU and AR data respectively. The most common barriers to reporting were related to technical issues (software, IT support, data formatting) and time/salary support. Among non-reporters, increased expectations to report and better software solutions were most commonly identified as the best ways to increase reporting.ConclusionEfforts to improve AUR reporting should focus on software solutions and increasing the utility of AUR analytical tools. Increasing expectations to report may also help to improve reporting rates. The lower rate of AR vs AU reporting suggests that interventions should also target the AR option.Disclosures Brian J. Werth, PharmD, Shionogi Inc. (Grant/Research Support) Kerry LaPlante, PharmD, Merck (Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support)Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. (Research Grant or Support)Pfizer Pharmaceuticals (Research Grant or Support)Shionogi, Inc. (Research Grant or Support)

Diagnostic and antimicrobial stewardship with molecular respiratory testing across the SHEA Research Network.

This survey investigated diagnostic and antimicrobial stewardship practices related to molecular respiratory panel testing in adults with lower respiratory tract infections at acute care hospitals. Most respondents reported use of rapid respiratory panels, but related stewardship practices were uncommon and the real-world impact of respiratory panels were difficult to quantify.

Practice Variation in Validation of Device Denominator Data for National Healthcare Safety Network Reporting

Background: The NHSN is a widely used CDC program for tracking healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). The goal of the NHSN is to help healthcare organizations to identify and track the incidence of HAI and to prevent adverse events as well as to simplify mandatory quality reporting to the CMS. Healthcare organizations provide both event data for HAIs and information about the population at risk. For device-related infections, device denominator data (eg, data related to urinary or intravascular catheters, and ventilators) must be collected and reported. NHSN guidelines require that electronic reporting of device denominator numbers be validated to be within 5% of manually collected counts over a period of 3 consecutive months. Little is known about current practical application of validation practices. Methods: We surveyed members of the SHEA Research Network (SRN) to assess awareness of and compliance with the current NHSN requirements for device denominator data validation. Results: The survey was sent to 89 member institutions of the SRN from November 20, 2018, to December 12, 2018. The response rate was 35.7%, and 90% of respondents are currently using an electronic system for device denominator count reporting. All except 1 institution manually validated the data. Of the facilities that had completed validation, 31% used &lt;90 days of manual data. Moreover, 82% of these facilities found a difference of &lt;5% between the electronic data and manual data without a statistically significant difference between those with at least 90 days of validation data and those with &lt;90 days. Also, 21% of facilities validated data based on a subset of units. Conclusions: Although most respondents to the survey validate electronically collected device denominator data in accordance with NHSN’s requirements, nearly one-third reported using shorter validation periods than NHSN requires. However, shorter periods were not associated with worse concordance. The NHSN should evaluate whether the burden of a 3-month validation period is justified.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None

Policies and practices of SHEA Research Network hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic.

To understand hospital policies and practices as the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated, the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) conducted a survey through the SHEA Research Network (SRN). The survey assessed policies and practices around the optimization of personal protection equipment (PPE), testing, healthcare personnel policies, visitors of COVID-19 patients in relation to procedures, and types of patients. Overall, 69 individual healthcare facilities responded in the United States and internationally, for a 73% response rate.

Variability in antifungal stewardship strategies among Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) Research Network facilities.

To characterize antifungal stewardship among antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) at a diverse range of hospitals and to correlate antifungal stewardship with hospital characteristics. Cross-sectional survey. ASP physician and/or pharmacist members at Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) Research Network (SRN) hospitals. An electronic survey administered August-September 2018 via the SRN to 111 hospitals. The χ2 test was used to test associations between ASP and hospital characteristics and use of antifungal stewardship strategies. Of 111 hospitals, 45 (41%) responded; most were academic medical centers (65%) caring for stem-cell patients (73.3%) and solid-organ transplant patients (80.0%). Most hospitals have large, well-established ASPs: 60% had >5 team members and 68.9% had a duration ≥6 years. In 43 hospitals (95.6%), ASPs used antifungal stewardship strategies, most commonly prospective audit and feedback (73.3%) by a pharmacist (71.4%). Half of ASPs (51.1%) created guidelines for invasive fungal infection (IFI) management. Most hospitals (71.1%) offered rapid laboratory tests to diagnose IFI, but polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing and antifungal susceptibility testing varied. Also, 29 ASPs (64.4%) perform surveillance of antifungal utilization, but only 9 (31%) reported to the CDC National Healthcare Safety Network. ASP size, duration, and presence of transplant populations were not associated with a higher likelihood of using antifungal stewardship strategies (P > .05 for all). The use of antifungal stewardship strategies was high at SRN hospitals, but they mainly involved audit and feedback. ASPs should be encouraged (1) to disseminate guidelines for IFI management, (2) to promote access to laboratory tests for rapid and accurate IFI diagnosis, and (3) to perform surveillance for antifungal utilization with reporting to the CDC.

1980. Variability in Antifungal Stewardship Strategies Among Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) Research Network Facilities

BackgroundThe incidence of invasive fungal infections (IFI) and antifungal utilization is increasing in many healthcare settings. Little is known regarding antifungal stewardship strategies within broader antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs). This survey aimed to identify the use of antifungal stewardship at a diverse range of hospitals.MethodsA cross-sectional electronic survey of the SHEA Research Network (SRN) was completed August–September 2018 by a physician or pharmacist ASP leader. The SRN is a consortium of >100 hospitals participating in multicenter healthcare epidemiology research projects. Survey questions pertained to various aspects of antifungal stewardship, including audit and feedback, laboratory testing, and surveillance. Chi-square tested associations between ASP and hospital characteristics and use of antifungal stewardship strategies.Results45/111 (41%) facilities responded, including 10 international sites. Most facilities are academic medical centers (64.6%) and care for stem cell (73.3%) and solid-organ transplant (80.0%) patients. Most facilities have large, well established ASPs (60.0% > 5 members; 68.9% duration ≥6 years). 43 (95.6%) facilities use antifungal stewardship strategies in their ASP; most commonly prospective audit and feedback (33/43, 73.3%) performed by a pharmacist (23/33, 71.4%). Only half of ASPs (51.1%) create guidelines for IFI management. Most (71.1%) facilities offer rapid laboratory tests to diagnose IFI, but availability of PCR for fungal speciation and antifungal susceptibility testing varies (Figure 1). 29 ASPs (64.4%) perform surveillance of antifungal utilization, but only 9 (31.0%) report data to CDC’s National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN). ASP size, ASP duration, and presence of transplant populations were not associated with a higher likelihood of using antifungal stewardship strategies (P > 0.05 for all).ConclusionUse of antifungal stewardship strategies is high at SRN hospitals, but mainly involves audit and feedback. ASPs should be encouraged to disseminate guidelines for IFI management, to promote access to laboratory-based tests for rapid and accurate IFI diagnosis, and to perform surveillance for antifungal utilization with data reporting to NHSN. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.