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.

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.

To ascertain opinions regarding etiology and preventability of hospital-onset bacteremia and fungemia (HOB) and perspectives on HOB as a potential outcome measure reflecting quality of infection prevention and hospital care.

Cross-sectional survey.

Hospital epidemiologists and infection preventionist members of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) Research Network.

A web-based, multiple-choice survey was administered via the SHEA Research Network to 133 hospitals.

A total of 89 surveys were completed (67% response rate). Overall, 60% of respondents defined HOB as a positive blood culture on or after hospital day 3. Central line-associated bloodstream infections and intra-abdominal infections were perceived as the most frequent etiologies. Moreover, 61% thought that most HOB events are preventable, and 54% viewed HOB as a measure reflecting a hospital’s quality of care. Also, 29% of respondents’ hospitals already collect HOB data for internal purposes. Given a choice to publicly report central-line–associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) and/or HOB, 57% favored reporting either HOB alone (22%) or in addition to CLABSI (35%) and 34% favored CLABSI alone.

Among the majority of SHEA Research Network respondents, HOB is perceived as preventable, reflective of quality of care, and potentially acceptable as a publicly reported quality metric. Further studies on HOB are needed, including validation as a quality measure, assessment of risk adjustment, and formation of evidence-based bundles and toolkits to facilitate measurement and improvement of HOB rates.