Ausman, Sara E.

Abstract Purpose No consistent recommendations exist on how best to educate pharmacists to facilitate implementation of new evidence-based practices. This study aimed to determine whether spaced learning was more effective than traditional education when learning a new evidence-based practice (β-lactam therapeutic drug monitoring, or TDM). Summary β-lactam TDM was implemented in a phased fashion at Mayo Clinic in Rochester. Two go-lives took place, separated by 6 months, which allowed for a natural experiment to test education delivery methods (traditional education in the first go-live group of pharmacists vs spaced learning in the second go-live group of pharmacists). Each group received the same base educational package, with pharmacists in the spaced learning group also offered monthly in-person sessions for 6 months before go-live to discuss key considerations and cases with experts. There was no difference between the spaced learning group and the traditional education group when assessing appropriate use of TDM as defined by (1) appropriate patient selection; (2) correct ordering of laboratory testing; (3) appropriate clinical action; and (4) completed documentation. Assessments of secondary knowledge transfer also showed no difference between the groups. Pharmacists in the different education groups had similar satisfaction scores related to the effect and utility of the education. Both spaced learning and traditional education were part of a comprehensive implementation plan for β-lactam TDM, which might have influenced the outcomes. Spaced learning for future pharmacist education efforts needs further study. Conclusion As part of a greater β-lactam TDM implementation effort, altering the education delivery method did not impact the degree of knowledge transfer.

Abstract Beta-lactam antibiotics are widely used in the intensive care unit due to their favorable effectiveness and safety profiles. Beta-lactams given to patients with sepsis must be delivered as soon as possible after infection recognition (early), treat the suspected organism (appropriate), and be administered at a dose that eradicates the infection (adequate). Early and appropriate antibiotic delivery occurs in >90% of patients, but less than half of patients with sepsis achieve adequate antibiotic exposure. This project aimed to address this quality gap and improve beta-lactam adequacy using the Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control Lean Six Sigma quality improvement framework. A multidisciplinary steering committee was formed, which completed a stakeholder analysis to define the gap in practice. An Ishikawa cause and effect (Fishbone) diagram was used to identify the root causes and an impact/effort grid facilitated prioritization of interventions. An intervention that included bundled education with the use of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM; i.e. drug-level testing) was projected to have the highest impact relative to the amount of effort and selected to address beta-lactam inadequacy in the critically ill. The education and TDM intervention were deployed through a Plan, Do, Study, Act cycle. In the 3 months after “go-live,” 54 episodes of beta-lactam TDM occurred in 41 unique intensive care unit patients. The primary quality metric of beta-lactam adequacy was achieved in 94% of individuals after the intervention. Ninety-four percent of clinicians gauged the education provided as sufficient. The primary counterbalance of antimicrobial days of therapy, a core antimicrobial stewardship metric, was unchanged over time (favorable result; P = .73). Application of the Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control Lean Six Sigma quality improvement framework effectively improved beta-lactam adequacy in critically ill patients. The approach taken in this quality improvement project is widely generalizable to other drugs, drug classes, or settings to increase the adequacy of drug exposure.

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.