Pine, Kathleen H.

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 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.

CSCW has previously investigated the "information work" that patients do in relation to their health, illnesses, and treatments. Our study contributes to this ongoing stream of work by investigating the information work that chronically ill patients do in relation to their physical bodily experiences. We use an interpretivist approach and qualitative methods (semi-structured interviews and observations) to examine how patients in a midwestern U.S. city carry out information work related to their bodily experiences of Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD). Our findings highlight four themes related to such work: bodily experiences of CKD; making meaning of bodily experiences through experiential learning; communicating bodily experiences; and attuning daily life around bodily experiences. In so doing, we show how patients continuously engage in information work in relation to their bodily experiences. For example, we found participants experienced physical sensations such as pain, cramping, and extreme fatigue, which elicited complex labor, yet most patients received little education from health care professionals about what bodily sensations they might have and what these physical experiences might mean. While patients and clinicians worked collaboratively to adjust treatment based on bodily information, such collaborative adjustment often did not occur until patients learned to interpret and communicate bodily experiences through a difficult and physically painful "trial and error" learning process. Our empirical insights extend on the literature of information work that chronically ill patients do and inform design of information technologies and care processes for patients with chronic disease.