Ausman, Sara

Abstract Background Implementing effective antimicrobial stewardship interventions is an important component of antimicrobial stewardship programs. Recently, stewardship research has shown that clinician characteristics may have an impact on antimicrobial stewardship intervention methods and acceptance rates. Methods A multisite health system antimicrobial stewardship prospective audit and feedback program interventions performed by stewardship staff using a standardized electronic medical record (EMR) tool were compared by stewardship clinician profession (pharmacist, physician, or advanced practice provider, APP) from 7/1/2017 to 6/30/2022. Outcomes assessed were intervention rates, communication methods, and intervention acceptance by patient age and intensive care unit (ICU) status of patient. Generalized estimating equations utilizing logistic regression were used to assess for associations between staff. Associations were assessed both univariately and after adjusting for other factors. Results Of 69,503 prospective audit and feedback EMR based rules, there were 14,699 rules associated with an intervention. The majority of rules were reviewed by pharmacists (90.7%) followed by physician (9.2%) and APP (< 1%). Of 9,034 interventions with an outcome documented, 7326 (85.5%) pharmacist interventions were accepted and 360 (77.3%) physician interventions were accepted (adjusted p=0.047). Pharmacists intervened by direct action (ie, adjust a medication order) in 6.6% of interventions; whereas, physicians did so rarely (0.4%). Pharmacists were more likely to use synchronous communication than physicians in the adjusted model (pharmacist vs. physician: 63.8% vs 52.5%; p=0.004). Patients in the ICU had a significantly lower intervention acceptance rate (non-ICU vs. ICU: 86.6% vs. 78.0%; adjusted OR 0.57 [95% CI 0.46-0.70], p< 0.001).Table 1.Intervention Rate by Baseline Demographics of Stewardship Clinicians and Patients. *% are reported as row % **Multivariable model was also adjusted for day of week and time of day APP-Advanced practice provider; ICU-intensive care unitTable 2.Intervention Acceptance. *% are reported as row % **Multivariable model was also adjusted for day of week and time of day APP-Advanced practice provider; ICU-intensive care unit Conclusion Antimicrobial stewardship pharmacists and physicians are both effective at prospective audit and feedback but used different intervention styles. Advanced practice providers were vastly underrepresented. Patients in the ICU may benefit from tailored ASP efforts. Disclosures Sara Ausman, PharmD, Gilead: Honoraria Caitlin Brown, PharmD, Alexion: Grant/Research Support|Trevena: Advisor/Consultant Christina G. Rivera (O'Connor), Pharm.D, Gilead Sciences: Advisor/Consultant|Gilead Sciences: Board Member|Gilead Sciences: Grant/Research Support|Gilead Sciences: Honoraria

Abstract Background Critically ill patients, particularly those treated with extracorporeal devices or at extremes of weight, experience pharmacokinetic variability which can compromise beta-lactam (BL) antibiotic target attainment and treatment response. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) for BL antibiotics can improve precision pharmacotherapy but has had limited implementation. The objective of this study was to evaluate the frequency of BL target attainment among adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients who underwent TDM. Methods This observational study evaluated adults treated with cefepime, piperacillin/tazobactam or meropenem in ICUs at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota who underwent TDM from June-September 2022. During the study timeframe, multidisciplinary teams were encouraged to perform BL TDM on patients requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, continuous kidney replacement therapy, or at an extreme of body weight (weight < 40 kg or >120 kg or BMI < 18 kg/m2 or > 40 kg/m2). Percentage of patients with initial serum trough concentrations within the therapeutic range was calculated (Table 1). Results During the study timeframe, 59 trough concentrations were performed on critically ill patients, of which 5 were excluded due to uninterpretable results. Of the remaining 54 BL trough concentrations analyzed, 49 (91%) were initial troughs during the antibiotic course, and 5 (9%) were repeat troughs. Thirty-six (73%) of the initial trough concentrations were within the therapeutic range. Among the trough concentrations outside the therapeutic range, 10 (77%) were too high, and 3 (23%) were too low (Table 2). Dose adjustment occurred in 19 (39%) of initial trough evaluations, including 6 which were adjusted despite a level within the therapeutic range. All of the repeat trough concentrations drawn during the same antibiotic course were within the therapeutic range (n = 5/5; 100%). Conclusion One-fourth of initial BL trough concentrations were outside of the therapeutic range. BL levels outside the therapeutic range prompted dose adjustment to improve the potential for effectiveness or limit the potential for toxicity. BL TDM appears to be a promising strategy to enhance precision pharmacotherapy in the critically ill. Disclosures Sara Ausman, PharmD, Gilead: Honoraria Christina G. Rivera (O'Connor), Pharm.D, Gilead Sciences: Advisor/Consultant|Gilead Sciences: Board Member|Gilead Sciences: Grant/Research Support|Gilead Sciences: Honoraria

AbstractBeta‐lactam therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) can improve precision dosing and clinical outcomes in critically ill patients, but has not been implemented widely in the United States. Mayo Clinic recently implemented a beta‐lactam TDM program. This single‐center experience forms the basis of the manuscript which outlines practical considerations involved with beta‐lactam TDM implementation, including the pharmacist's role as a leader. Our implementation effort focused on three primary domains. First, we aimed to ensure a supportive organizational infrastructure. Early leadership engagement by the pharmacist‐led core team facilitated advocacy for the clinical need, allocation of resources, and assay development. Second, core clinical workflows were developed that addressed the preferred patient population for use, desirable pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic targets, and the preferred sampling strategy. Clinical tools to guide pharmacists in interpreting the results (e.g., pharmacokinetics calculator) and documenting decisions were developed. Third, stakeholders were offered repeated exposure to evidence and expertise to facilitate understanding and application of the new practice. This act of ‘individual internalization’ seems to be uniquely important to beta‐lactam TDM implementation compared with the implementation of other antimicrobial TDM programs. Educational strategies and supportive materials that were developed were focused on providing substantive and varied information tailored to the stakeholders' role in the process. For pharmacists, this included both clinical and operational considerations. A continuous improvement plan to support management of the process was instituted to address necessary updates and changes that inevitably emerged. In summary, the described approach to implementation of a pharmacist‐led beta‐lactam TDM program could be used as a roadmap to aid other institutions that aim to develop such a program.

Background: Beta-lactam therapeutic drug monitoring (BL TDM; drug level testing) can facilitate improved outcomes in critically ill patients. However, only 10%–20% of hospitals have implemented BL TDM. This study aimed to characterize provider perceptions and key considerations for successfully implementing BL TDM. Methods: This was a sequential mixed-methods study from 2020 to 2021 of diverse stakeholders at 3 academic medical centers with varying degrees of BL TDM implementation (not implemented, partially implemented, and fully implemented). Stakeholders were surveyed, and a proportion of participants completed semistructured interviews. Themes were identified, and findings were contextualized with implementation science frameworks. Results: Most of the 138 survey respondents perceived that BL TDM was relevant to their practice and improved medication effectiveness and safety. Integrated with interview data from 30 individuals, 2 implementation themes were identified: individual internalization and organizational features. Individuals needed to internalize, make sense of, and agree to BL TDM implementation, which was positively influenced by repeated exposure to evidence and expertise. The process of internalization appeared more complex with BL TDM than with other antibiotics (ie, vancomycin). Organizational considerations relevant to BL TDM implementation (eg, infrastructure, personnel) were similar to those identified in other TDM settings. Conclusions: Broad enthusiasm for BL TDM among participants was found. Prior literature suggested that assay availability was the primary barrier to implementation; however, the data revealed many more individual and organizational attributes, which impacted the BL TDM implementation. Internalization should particularly be focused on to improve the adoption of this evidence-based practice.

Abstract Background URIs are the most common indication for outpatient antibiotic prescribing. Given high rates of unnecessary prescribing, these indications have been identified as a high-priority target for outpatient antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASP). Our primary objective was to evaluate the impact of a system-wide, multifaceted, outpatient ASP intervention bundle on unnecessary antibiotic prescribing for URI. Methods This quasi-experimental study was conducted from 2019 to 2021. ICD-10 codes for URIs were grouped into 3 tiers (i.e., tier I = antibiotics always indicated, tier II = sometimes, tier III = never). Encounters from 5 care specialties (i.e., family medicine, community internal medicine, express care, pediatrics, and emergency department) with a tier III URI primary ICD-10 code but without a secondary tier I or tier II code were included. COVID-19 ICD-10 codes were excluded. Interventions included construction of a prescribing data model, dissemination of clinician prescribing data and education, promotion of symptom management strategies, a patient-facing commitment poster, and a pre-populated URI order panel. Tools were designed at a system level and implemented by regional champions beginning in the 3rd quarter of 2020. The primary outcome was the rate of antibiotic prescribing, and the secondary outcome and counterbalance measure was the rate of repeat URI-related healthcare contact within 14 days. Outcomes were analyzed with chi-square with an α level of 0.05. Results A total of 147403 encounters were included. The overall antibiotic prescribing rate decreased from 24.1% to 12.3% between 2019 and 2021 (p< 0.01). Significant reductions in tier III antibiotic prescribing were demonstrated for each region, care specialty, and syndrome evaluated (Table 1). A reduction in repeat healthcare contact was seen across the total cohort (9.5% in 2019 vs. 8.3% in 2021, p< 0.01); decreases in repeat contact rates were observed in those not initially receiving an antibiotic (10.3% vs. 8.6%, p< 0.01), but not in those who initially received an antibiotic (6.8% vs. 6.8%, p = 0.94). Tier III URI encounter level antimicrobial prescribing rates by region, care specialty, and syndrome Conclusion A multifaceted, outpatient ASP intervention bundle decreased rates of unnecessary antimicrobial prescribing without increasing rates of 14-day repeat URI-related healthcare contact. Disclosures Paschalis Vergidis, MD, AbbVie: DSMB|Cidara: Grant/Research Support|Scynexis: Grant/Research Support Evan Draper, PharmD, Gilead Foundation: Grant/Research Support Sara Ausman, PharmD, Gilead: Honoraria Christina G. Rivera, PharmD, Gilead: Grant/Research Support|Gilead: Honoraria|Insmed: Honoraria.

Abstract Background Beta-lactam therapeutic drug monitoring (BL TDM; drug level testing) can facilitate improved outcomes in critically ill patients. Yet less than 20% of hospitals have implemented BL TDM. The purpose of this study was to characterize provider perceptions and key considerations for successful implementation of BL TDM. Methods This was a sequential mixed methods study from 2020 to 2021 of stakeholders at three academic medical centers with varying degrees of BL TDM implementation - Mayo Clinic (BL TDM not implemented), University of Florida Health Shands (partially implemented), and Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital (fully implemented). Stakeholders completed a survey to characterize their knowledge, perceptions, and experience with BL TDM. A diverse group of 30 respondents were then purposively sampled for semi-structured interviews. Results from the two strands were integrated, themes were identified, and findings were situated within implementation science frameworks. Results Among the 138 survey respondents (22% response rate), the majority were physicians (38%) and pharmacists (33%). 71% practiced in critical care and 21% in infectious diseases. The majority of respondents felt BL TDM was relevant to their practice and improved medication effectiveness and safety (Figure 1). Two implementation themes were identified: individual internalization and organizational features. Individuals needed to internalize, make sense of, and agree to BL TDM implementation which was positively influenced by repeated exposure to evidence and expertise. The process of internalization seemed more complex with BL TDM than with other antibiotics (i.e., vancomycin). Organizational considerations relevant to BL TDM implementation included adequate physical and informational infrastructure, access to trained personnel, supportive governance/leadership, and robust process and workflow development. Conclusion We found broad enthusiasm about the relevance and potential benefits of BL TDM among stakeholders. Prior literature suggested the primary barrier to implementation was assay availability, but we identified many more individual and organizational attributes which impacted the scale and spread of BL TDM. Disclosures Sara Ausman, PharmD, Gilead: Honoraria Christina G. Rivera, PharmD, Gilead: Grant/Research Support|Gilead: Honoraria|Insmed: Honoraria Jason Roberts, BPharm(Hons), PhD, FSHP, FISAC, British Society of Chemotherapy: Grant/Research Support|Cipla: Honoraria|Gilead: Advisor/Consultant|MSD: Advisor/Consultant|MSD: Honoraria|Pfizer: Board Member|Pfizer: Honoraria|Qpex: Grant/Research Support|Sandoz: Board Member|Summit: Advisor/Consultant|Wolters Kluwer: Advisor/Consultant Marc H. Scheetz, PharmD, MSc, Abbvie: Advisor/Consultant|Allecra: Grant/Research Support|Merck: Advisor/Consultant|Nevakar: Advisor/Consultant|Nevakar: Grant/Research Support|Premier Healthcare Solutions: Honoraria|Spero: Advisor/Consultant|SuperTrans Medical: Advisor/Consultant|SuperTrans Medical: Grant/Research Support|Takeda: Advisor/Consultant|Third Pole Therapeutics: Advisor/Consultant.

AbstractHuman antimicrobial consumption largely occurs in the ambulatory setting, with inappropriate or unnecessary antimicrobial prescribing well documented in the literature. In 2020, The Joint Commission implemented a regulatory standard requiring the development and implementation of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASP) in those institutions surveyed under the ambulatory accreditation standard. While experience with inpatient antimicrobial stewardship has continued to increase, ambulatory ASPs are programmatically distinct and can present unique challenges with regards to operationalizing regulatory components. Herein, we lay a framework for addressing the task of developing an ambulatory ASP for a large health system by reviewing the regulatory requirements, examining relevant recent publications, and describing our institutional experience.