Objectives: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a major concern for hospitalized patients in Singapore. Hospital-onset (HO) MRSA bacteremia is monitored at the national level as an indicator of hospital quality. Patients who have colonized with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) are more likely to develop an MRSA infection in the future. A topical antiseptic solution or cloth called chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) is effective against several gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria, including MRSA. Methods: The following control measures were present before and throughout the study period: (1) active screening of MRSA upon admission; (2) initiation of contact precaution once MRSA is detected; and (3) emphasis on strict hand hygiene. In January 2021, an intervention was for routine application of CHG bathing as follows: (1) training materials were developed; (2) train-the-trainer sessions were organized; (3) compliance regarding the application of CHG baths was monitored; and (4) the postimplementation process was reviewed. Results: There was no change of hand hygiene rate before and after implementation. In 2020, 17 cases of MRSA bacteremia occurred in the hospital, with an infection incidence of 0.54 per 10,000 patient days. In 2021, there were 10 cases of HO-MRSA bacteremia infection, with an overall rate of was 0.30 per 10,000 patient days. Conclusions: Daily bathing with chlorhexidine reduced the risk of MRSA acquisition and of hospital-acquired bacteremia.

Background: Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, increased inappropriate antibiotic use (AU) drove concern for antimicrobial resistance. Antimicrobial stewardship efforts are critical for combatting antimicrobial resistance. Our objective was to compare AU between SARS-CoV-2 delta and omicron variant surge periods in COVID-19 patients hospitalized at Tufts Medical Center (TMC) in Boston. Infectious diseases consultation (IDC) was mandatory for patients diagnosed with COVID-19 throughout the SARS-CoV-2 delta variant surge. During the SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant surge, IDC was optional for certain patient populations. Instead, the antibiotic stewardship program (ASP) reviewed these patients for appropriate medical management. We hypothesized that AU would increase during the SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant surge compared to the delta variant surge due to optional IDC because IDC would reduce inappropriate AU for suspected viral pneumonia. Methods: Retrospective medical record review of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 during the SARS-CoV-2 delta and omicron variant surges was conducted. We collected data regarding vital signs, white blood cell count (WBC), length of stay (LOS), steroid use, IDC, and AU (defined as percentage of patients receiving at least 1 antibiotic dose), with a separate category for antibiotics commonly used for bacterial pneumonia (ampicillin-sulbactam, azithromycin, cefepime, cefpodoxime, ceftazidime, ceftriaxone, doxycycline, piperacillin-tazobactam, vancomycin). We determined that 71 patients from each group were needed to detect an absolute difference of 20% in AU between surges with 75% power, based on the CDC estimate that 80% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 receive an antibiotic. Unpaired t tests and χ2 analyses were conducted on demographic data. Inferential statistics assessed for differences between the 2 SARS-CoV-2 variant surges in AU and days of therapy (DOT), supplemental oxygen (SaO2), steroid use, and IDC utilizing a Wilcoxon rank-sum test and logistic regression analyses. Results: Results showed no significant differences in AU between surges (38.0% during the SARS-CoV-2 delta variant surge vs 42.3% during the SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant surge; P = .131). Disease severity was not different between surges as measured by steroid use, initial WBC, and SaO2. WBC was a predictor for AU in both surges (delta surge, P = 0.007; omicron surge, P = .002). Average LOS was higher throughout the SARS-CoV-2 delta variant surge for all patients (11.58 days during the delta surge, vs 5.97 days during the omicron variant surge; P = .047) and those who received antibiotics (18.44 days during the delta variant surge vs 6.70 days dring the omicron variant surge; P = .210). Total DOT was significantly longer during the SARS-CoV-2 delta variant surge for all antibiotics (463 DOT during the delta variant surge vs 277 DOT during the omicron variant surge; P = .047) and antibiotics commonly used for bacterial pneumonia (315 DOT during the delta variant surge vs 202 DOT during the omicron variant surge; P = .021). Conclusions: Making IDC optional for certain patient populations diagnosed with COVID-19 did not affect AU in a large, urban academic medical center with a comprehensive ASP.

Disclosures: None

Objectives: Preparation of medical devices from central sterile supply department (CSSD) for use in hospital services requires quality and readiness for use. A guideline for good practice is necessary for safety, assurance, and maximum customer satisfaction, and to accommodate effective healthcare services. We sought to develop and improve medical-device preparation guidelines to satisfy clients. Methods: This action research was based on the concepts of Kaizen and eliminate–combine–rearrange–simplify (ECRS). The research was conducted in 3 phases. In the first phase, we designed the study, conducted problem analysis, and developed a plan for improving the preparation of medical devices. In the second phase, we improved the plan for implementation of medical-device preparation guidelines that the research team adapted and developed. We added inspection categories, trained staff members, conducted a focus group. We improved cleaning processes and the inventory system. In the third phase, we conducted an improvement evaluation for (1) quality improvement of medical device preparation and (2) client satisfaction. The research took place from January to December 2019. Results: The monthly percentages of medical equipment that passed quality criteria before and after the implementation plan were 91.82±1.19% and 95.33±1.25% (P ≤ .005). The average client satisfaction score increased from 76.80% to 83.40% (P = .006). Conclusions: The implementation of Kaizen and ECRS principles for quality improvement successfully increased the quality of equipment preparation and introduced standardized, quality guidelines. The plan–do–check–act (PDCA) process improved client satisfaction, staff performance, and operational efficiency while preventing damage to medical devices and improving readiness of use.

Background: Previously, our hospital manually built a static antibiogram from a surveillance system (VigiLanz) culture report. In 2019, a collaboration between the antimicrobial stewardship team (AST) and the infection control (IC) team set out to leverage data automation to create a dynamic antibiogram. The goal for the antibiogram was the ability to easily distribute and update for hospital staff, with the added ability to perform advanced tracking and surveillance of organism and drug susceptibilities for AST and IC. By having a readily available, accurate, and Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI)–compliant antibiogram, clinicians have the best available data on which to base their empiric antibiotic decisions. Methods: First, assessment of required access to hospital databases and selection of a visualization software (MS Power BI) was performed. Connecting SQL database feeds to Power BI enabled creation of a data model using DAX and M code to comply with the CLSI, generating the first isolate per patient per year. Once a visual antibiogram was created, it was validated against compiled antibiograms using data from the microbiology laboratory middleware (bioMerieux, Observa Integrated Data Management Software). This validation process uncovered some discrepancies between the 2 reference reports due to cascade reporting of susceptibilities. The Observa-derived data were used as the source of truth. The antibiogram prototype was presented to AST/IC members, microbiology laboratory leadership, and other stakeholders to assess functionality. Results: Following feedback and revisions by stakeholders, the new antibiogram was published on a hospital-wide digital platform (Fig. 1). Clinicians may view the antibiogram at any time on desktops from a firewall (or password)–protected intranet. The antibiogram view defaults to the current calendar year and users may interact with the antibiogram rows and columns without disrupting the integrity of the background databases or codes. Each year, simple refreshing of the Power BI antibiogram and changing of the calendar year allows us to easily and accurately update the antibiogram on the hospital-wide digital platform. Conclusions: This interdisciplinary collaboration resulted in a new dynamic, CLSI-compliant antibiogram with improved usability, increased visibility, and straightforward updating. In the future, a mobile version of the antibiogram may further enhance accessibility, bring more useful information to providers, and optimize AST/IC guidelines and education.

Disclosures: None

Background: Antibiotic overuse and the resulting patient outcomes span all hospitals. However, although antibiotic stewardship can improve antibiotic use, effective stewardship programs require expertise and an infrastructure that are not present in all hospitals. Rural hospitals have less access to resources, infectious disease expertise, and participation in academic research. Thus, we compared antibiotic overuse at discharge between rural and nonrural hospitals for patients diagnosed with community-associated pneumonia (CAP) or urinary tract infection (UTI)—the 2 most common hospital infections. Methods: To determine whether antibiotic overuse at discharge was higher among rural versus nonrural hospitals, we analyzed data from a 41-hospital prospective cohort of patients treated for CAP or UTI between July 1, 2017, and July 30, 2019, in Michigan. Antibiotic overuse was defined as treatment that was unnecessary (ie, patient did not have an infection), excessive (ie, duration >4 days for CAP), or included suboptimal fluoroquinolone use (ie, safer alternative available). Overuse was determined based on patient risk factors, symptoms, allergies, diagnostic results, and time to stability. Hospital rurality was defined using the Rural–Urban Continuum Codes (RUCC) score. We defined rural as a score ≥4 and very rural as a score of 7–9. We used t tests to compare the mean percentage of patients with antibiotic overuse at discharge between nonrural and rural (and very rural) hospitals. Results: Across 41 hospitals, we included 23,449 patients with CAP or UTI. There were 5 rural (and 3 very rural) hospitals with 2,039 (and 1,082) patients. Antibiotic overuse at discharge was present in 43.1% of patient cases in nonrural hospitals, 52.5% in rural hospitals (P = .04 vs nonrural) and 58.1% in very rural hospitals (P = .007 vs nonrural). Compared to nonrural hospitals, the mean percentage of cases with antibiotic overuse at discharge in rural hospitals was 9.4% higher (15.1% higher in very rural hospitals). Results were similar in a subgroup analysis of only patients with UTI (47.0% in rural vs 37.5% in nonrural, mean difference, 9.5%; P = .03) but were not statistically significant in patients with CAP (53.8% vs 48.0%, respectively; mean difference, 5.8%; P = 0.23). Conclusions: In this retrospective study, rural hospitals—especially very rural hospitals, had higher rates of antibiotic overuse at discharge than nonrural hospitals. Our findings suggest that antibiotic stewardship interventions tailored toward the unique differences in infrastructure, resources, and needs of rural hospitals are essential to community health.

Disclosures: None

Objectives: Sharp injuries are frequent occurrences in healthcare settings. According to the World Health Organization, >2 million occupational exposures to sharp injuries occur among 35 million healthcare workers (HCWs) annually. We report the 5-year incidence and trends of sharp injuries in an acute-care hospital. We compared the rates of injury, the distribution of injuries, and the type of exposure of HCWs during the prepandemic and pandemic eras. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of a 5-year surveillance on self-reported sharp injuries in Changi General Hospital, a 1,000-bed acute-care hospital. The occupational groups, the type of sharps, and the incident activity involved were reviewed. The bloodborne pathogen statuses of the identified source patients were studied. Results: In total, 441 sharp injuries were reported from 2017 to 2021. Among the occupational groups, doctors reported the highest number of sharp injuries (N = 272, 61.7%), followed by nurses (N = 129, 29.3%) and other allied health professionals (N = 29, 6.4%). An increasing proportion of doctors reported sharp injuries from 2017 to 2019 (prepandemic era) and the proportion declined from 2020 to 2021 (pandemic era); 52 doctors (58.4%) reported sharp injuries in 2017, 61 (61.1%) in 2018, 72 (67.9%) in 2019, 47 (61%) in 2020, and 40 (57.1%) in 2021. Most sharp injuries were caused by solid sharps (212 of 441, 48.1%) and hollow-bore needles (205 of 441, 46.5%). Source patients were identified in 407 sharp injuries. From the known sources, 51 were seropositive: 20 for hepatitis B (HBV), 27 for hepatitis C (HCV), and 4 for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). No seroconversion occurred. Overall, 198 sharp injuries (44.9%) were sustained during surgical procedures, 83 (18.8%) occurred during blood taking, and 44 (9.9%) occurred during injection administration. Also, 37.5% of sharp injuries among doctors occurred during surgical procedures, and 69.6% of sharp injuries in OT occurred among junior surgical doctors. Conclusions: The overall incidence of sharp injuries has decreased during the pandemic. Fewer elective surgical procedures were performed during the pandemic period. OT suturing training workshops and awareness programs on strategies for preventing sharps injuries in the operating theatre, targeted at surgical residents during the past 2 years, could have contributed to the decrease in the incidence of sharp injuries in our hospital. Sharp injuries pose a significant exposure to blood and body fluids and should be subject to continued epidemiological surveillance.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) continues to be a serious global public issue. Unnecessary and inappropriate use of antimicrobials has been identified as a major contributing factor for AMR. Implementation of antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) is valued as a key strategy to combat AMR. Although ASP is a key intervention to improve appropriate use of antibiotics, there is limited experience and research to describe its implementation in low-income countries such as Nepal. Grande International Hospital (GIH) is the first health organization in Nepal to implement and sustain a multidisciplinary ASP and infection control program. Challenges faced in implementing ASP include lack of acceptance from physicians, lack of knowledge regarding antibiotic prescribing, lack of staff for ASP activities, limitations in diagnostic testing to inform ASP, and limitations in antibiotic choice due to antibiotic unavailability. Our ASP includes the following components: an ASP committee, an antibiotic prescribing reference guide with dosage recommendations, inpatient formulary restriction system, educational outreach and programming for physicians and other stakeholders, and periodic review and revision of the program and reference guide. The ASP provided opportunities to address several knowledge gaps across our healthcare institution including improved knowledge and competency regarding rational use of antibiotics, access to quality medicines and better care to patients. It is our hope that, by describing the challenges and opportunities we experienced while implementing our ASP, we can support and encourage other institutions to adapt and implement ASPs in Nepal and other resource-limited settings.

Background: Diagnosis and management of suspected urinary tract infection (UTI) in outpatient settings has been shown to be suboptimal. We previously developed a set of stewardship metrics for UTIs based on electronic health record (EHR) data (Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology 2022;2 suppl 1:S5–S6. doi:10.1017/ash.2022). A tier-based approach was used to more fully capture antibiotic use associated with genitourinary (GU) symptoms and diagnoses. Herein we report a preliminary analysis of validity and reliability of these metrics based on chart abstraction. Methods: The study cohort consisted of patients who visited Veterans Affairs emergency departments or primary care clinics between 2015 and 2022 and who had a GU diagnosis based on International Classification of Disease, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes, divided into 3 categories: tier 1 (antibiotics always indicated), tier 2 (antibiotics sometimes indicated), and tier 3 (antibiotics not indicated). Visits related to urological procedures, nontarget settings, or concomitant non-GU infections were excluded. Cases were randomly sampled for manual review from within 8 strata based on tier, use of antibiotics, and visit type. An infectious disease physician and pharmacist abstracted charts using a standardized data-collection instrument. Clinical judgments regarding diagnosis and treatment were recorded on a Likert scale without knowledge of how the patient was managed. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to estimate interrater reliability. Results: To date, 148 cases have been reviewed (50 by both reviewers). Mean (SD) age was 67.5 (15.3) years and 12.2% were female. In a majority of tier 1 and 2 visits in which antibiotics were given, the reviewers found evidence for GU infection (69.7%) and favored prescribing of antibiotics (60.6%) (Table). In contrast, most patients in the tier 3 category who received antibiotics were judged to have noninfectious conditions (eg, benign prostatic hypertrophy) and to not require antibiotics. In the subset of records examined by both reviewers, the interrater reliability of judgments of whether antibiotics were warranted was good (ICC = .704). Conclusions: This preliminary validation provides support for a tier-based approach for stewardship metrics for GU conditions that relies upon electronic data to identify patients for whom antibiotics are generally not indicated.

Disclosures: None

Objectives: The prevention of nosocomial infection is a challenge for all healthcare institutions. Privacy curtains are often changed infrequently, and they are difficult to clean. Contaminated curtains can be touched by healthcare providers and patients, which may result in indirect transmission of infectious disease. Hence, we evaluated the impact of the antimicrobial properties of disposable curtains and their cost-effectiveness. Methods: This descriptive exploratory study was conducted in an ambulatory cancer center in 2017. Privacy curtains were assigned to 2 cohorts, labelled E1 and E2. They were placed in the clinical areas for 6–12 months. Moist swab samples for MRSA, VRE, and CP-CRE cultures were obtained from the leading edges of the curtains during the evaluation period. Also, 10-cm × 10-cm swatches were cut from the high-touch areas of curtains and were tested for total aerobic count on the first of the month and quarterly thereafter. Results: All bacterial culture swabs obtained from the E1 and E2 cohorts of curtains were negative. The total bacterial plate count results from E1 curtains were negative for up to 1 year. However, the total bacterial plate count results for E2 curtains were positive in the sixth month. Using disposable curtains yielded an annual cost saving of ~50%. Conclusions: The use of appropriate impregnated antimicrobial disposable curtains can improve patient safety in the clinical areas. These curtains may eliminate potential sources of infection and thereby decrease the rate of nosocomial infection. They also save significant institutional costs by reducing frequent laundry and manpower requirements needed for the installation of curtains.

Objectives: Following a cluster of COVID-19 cases in a Singapore public hospital in April 2021, the local health authority mandated the use of N95 respirators in all inpatient wards. This increased the demand for N95 mask fit-testing to ensure that healthcare workers were donning respirators that fit their facial characteristics and hence provided protection through a good facial seal. The demand for fit-testing during the pandemic highlighted the scarcity of manpower and ergonomics concern, such as carpel tunnel syndrome experienced in long hours of qualitative fit-testing sessions. We evaluated the operational efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and difference in passing rate after the introduction of the quantitative method. Methods: Conventional qualitative fit-testing was conducted using manual pumping of a challenge agent, enabling the user to determine the fit of the respirator. The quantitative fit-testing protocol used a condensation particle counter (CPC) to measure the concentration of particles inside the mask and the atmosphere to determine the fit of respirator. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)–approved minimum fit factor of 100 was used as the criterion for a successful N95 respirator fit. Tubes used during quantitative fit-testing were reprocessed using thermal disinfection. Results: Quantitative mask fit-testing provided an objective numerical measure to assess adequate fit of N95 respirator, which provided users with confidence in the respirator fit. It addressed a manpower limitation issue because it did not require qualified trainers to conduct the test, and automation also prevented any potential occupational hazard from repeated actions required in qualitative fit-testing. An increase in the passing rate for N95 fit-testing from 94.5% to 95.5% was observed. However, the high cost of equipment, annual recalibration, and consumables must be considered. Conclusions: Quantitative N95 fit-testing, when adopted with careful consideration of its cost, is an approach to consider for hospital-wide fit-testing.

We evaluated the impact of preliminary blood-culture antibiotic susceptibility testing on time to optimal antibiotic therapy in a cohort of 503 patients with monomicrobial bloodstream infections. The median time from blood-culture collection to optimal antibiotics was 17 hours earlier in the preliminary antibiotic susceptibility testing group.

Background: Feedback regarding antibiotic-associated adverse events (ABX-AEs) may assist clinicians with antibiotic decision making. We sought to understand how clinicians account for ABX-AEs when prescribing and their preferences for ABX-AE feedback. Methods: We conducted 1-hour virtual focus groups with 3–5 physicians or advance practice practitioners (APPs) per session at Johns Hopkins Hospital. Participants discussed the role of ABX-AEs in antibiotic decision making and feedback preferences. Participants evaluated prespecified categorization (mildly, moderately, or very concerning) of several ABX-AEs. Focus groups were recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were coded inductively by 2 independent reviewers; discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Codes were used to conduct thematic analysis. Results: Overall, 3 focus groups were conducted with 12 participants: 41.6% were house staff, 16.7% were attending physicians, and 41.6% were APPs. Most were female (91.6%) and were white (41.7%) or Asian (41.7%). Clinicians generally agreed with the prespecified categorizations of ABX-AEs based on degree of clinical concern (Table). We identified 5 themes: (1) The risk of ABX-AE is considered during initial prescribing but influences agent selection more than the decision to prescribe antibiotics. (2) The occurrence of an ABX-AE leads to assessment of need for continued antibiotic therapy. (3) The impact of an ABX-AE on other management decisions is as important as the direct harm of the ABX-AE when assessing severity. (4) Feedback must be curated to prevent clinicians from being overwhelmed with data. (5) Clinicians will be more receptive to feedback regarding ABX-AEs if feedback is contextualized (Fig.). Conclusions: The themes identified and assessment of ABX-AEs of greatest clinical concern may help inform the development of effective ABX-AE feedback methods to improve antibiotic safety.

Disclosures: None

Background: Antimicrobial stewardship strategies must be tailored to effectively engage prescribers with distinct training, experiences, and career paths. Advanced practice providers (APPs) have taken on increasing roles as primary team members in acute-care hospitals, but the impact of this practice shift on antimicrobial prescribing is unknown. We describe longitudinal trends in antimicrobial days of therapy (DOT) by attributed provider type in 3 hospitals. Methods: We performed a retrospective time-series analysis of antimicrobial use for the 7-year period of July 2015–June 2022 to investigate the changes by provider type at 3 hospitals: a major university hospital and 2 community hospitals. DOT, antibacterial, and antifungal agent groups were defined using National Healthcare Safety Network methods. We included anti-influenza and antiherpesvirus agents in the antiviral group. We defined protected agents as those targeted by hospital antimicrobial stewardship program policy (eg, requiring preauthorization). Provider type was defined by electronic health record user profiles in 3 categories: physician, trainees (residents, fellows and medical students), and APPs (nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and nurse anesthetists). We evaluated DOT per 1,000 days present over time by agent group to assess quarterly rate trends. Then, we calculated the percentage of total DOT by provider group. We used multinomial logistic regression to measure changes in percentage DOT across the clinician groups over time using physicians as the referent. Results: Across hospitals and provider groups, we observed an overall decrease in use rates for antibacterial and protected agents (17% each) and increased use rates for antiviral agents (38%) and antifungal agents (4%) (Table 1). Baseline distribution of DOT by provider group and change in distribution over time varied by hospital and agent group (Fig. and Table 2). The largest increases in percentage DOT attributed to APPs compared with physicians occurred in the university hospital with the following average increases per quarter: 1.5% for antibacterials, 3.9% for antivirals, 3.3% for antifungals, and 3.8% for protected agents (Table 3). Community hospitals had higher initial percentage DOT attributed to physicians, but both hospitals experienced increased percentage DOT attributed to APPs. Percentage DOT attributed to trainees varied significantly across agent groups and hospitals. Conclusions: Hospitals had differing baseline patterns of DOT attributed to provider groups, but all experienced increases in DOT attributed to APPs. APPs have increasing involvement in antimicrobial use decisions and should be engaged in future antimicrobial stewardship initiatives.

Disclosures: None

Objectives: Patients undergoing hemodialysis using a catheter are at significant risk of developing central venous catheter–related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs), especially with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), resulting in increased morbidity, mortality, and cost. In our 1,000-bed regional hospital, the average CRBSI (any bacteria) rate in patients dialyzing via dialysis catheters was 1.44 per 1,000 catheter days, and the average CRBSI (MRSA) rate was 0.56 per 1,000 catheter days. A quality improvement project was initiated to reduce the overall dialysis CRBSI and CRBSI-MRSA by 50%. Methods: Following the formation of a multidisciplinary team, the catheter-insertion protocols and catheter-care protocols were standardized throughout the hospital. We adopted a well-established scientific quality improvement method, plan–do–study–act (PDSA) cycle model for all interventions that were implemented. The patients and general ward nursing staff were provided education and training in dialysis catheter care. Results: The project was initiated in January 2016, and the initial improvement was seen from July 2017 onward. Analysis of the data since 2016 showed a steady improvement in the overall CRBSI rates, as well as CRBSI-MRSA rates. The average CRBSI rate improved to 0.76 per 1,000 catheter days, and the average CRBSI-MRSA rates improved to 0.15 per 100 catheter days in the calendar year 2021. Conclusions: Because the causes of these infections are multifactorial, emphasis should be placed on improving care processes from the patient preparation phase prior to catheter insertion to regular catheter care in the inpatient wards and dialysis units. We attribute the success of our project to involving all stakeholders and obtaining constant feedback from the staff. We successfully applied PDSA cycles to make relevant incremental changes.

Objectives: In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic over the past 2 years, training regarding infection and prevention control (IPC) has become essential in responding promptly to the pandemic. Many healthcare workers from Cho Ray Hospital and provincial hospitals need IPC training; however, human resources and facilities for continuous education and training are lacking. Therefore, IPC e-learning has become necessary for medical staff, and we designed IPC e-learning courses to meet healthcare workers’ needs for efficient, time and cost-saving training to ensure safety during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: All medical staff of Cho Ray Hospital were invited to participate in the infection control e-learning study. The software was developed based on the existing lectures from practical infection control protocols. Healthcare workers were asked to study the software and take a test on the their training. Results: We built the e-learning course of IPC for 5,000 participants as well as management software to manage lessons, member data, and test results. After implementation for 2 months in the hospital, 207 participants had taken the exam 2,234 times. Overall, 70.5% of participants were nurses and 14.9% were doctors. Moreover, 66.4% of participants passed the test the first time they took it, and 33.6% took the test a second time. After the second test, the percentage of members who passed the exam was 100%. Conclusions: Building and applying e-learning software for IPC training has brought about efficiency and quality of training, has reduced the use of human resources for training, and has decreased costs. The software application is being expanded to all hospitals in Vietnam.

Background: Handshake stewardship is a variation of prospective audit and feedback that entails the individual review of patient charts by a physician–pharmacist collaborative team followed by in-person feedback to primary teams to communicate recommendations regarding optimal antibiotic use. Handshake stewardship has been shown to have durable effects in reducing antimicrobial use in children’s hospitals, but data regarding this intervention in adult hospitals are scarce. In particular, no data are available regarding the impact of this type of stewardship intervention on adult surgical units. We examined the effect of a handshake stewardship intervention at a large academic medical center on adult trauma and acute- and critical-care surgery (ACCS) units. Methods: The antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) at Barnes-Jewish Hospital launched a handshake stewardship intervention targeting surgical floor teams in January 2022. These teams included the ACCS teams and a number of other surgical services. The intervention consisted of once weekly reviews and in-person rounds with the surgical floor teams along with the establishment of a 7 day per week “hotline” in which the surgical teams could contact an ID physician or pharmacist with questions regarding antibiotic use. Patients with formal ID consultations were not reviewed. Recommendations were tracked including the type, the antibiotic targeted, and recommendation acceptance or rejection. Descriptive statistics were performed to analyze these results. At the end of 12 months, antibiotic use in the floors covered by the ACCS teams were pulled from the NHSN AU module to perform an interrupted time-series analysis 12 months before and after the intervention. Results: Overall, 3,127 charts were reviewed during the intervention period and 637 recommendations were made to all the surgical teams. Opportunities for antibiotic use optimization were identified in ~20% of antibiotic orders. The overall recommendation acceptance rate was 71%. In the ACCS units, 272 interventions were recommended, with an acceptance rate of 67%. The most frequent recommendations were for antibiotic discontinuation (37%), antibiotic de-escalation (17%), shortening duration (12%), and broadening coverage (12%). Antibiotic usage trends (Fig. 1) on the ACCS floors, which were showing a nonsignificant increasing trend (P = .70) before and after the intervention, now show a nonsignificant decreasing trend (P = .20). Conclusions: There are numerous opportunities for antibiotic optimization on adult surgical floors. Although handshake stewardship is a labor-intensive intervention, preliminary findings after 1 year show that, on ACCS units, there may be a trend toward a sustained impact.

Disclosures: None

Among 37 internal-medicine resident physicians assigned to our outpatient clinic at Minneapolis Veterans’ Affairs Health Care System (MVAHCS) on July 1, 2017, we designed a pre- and postintervention observational study. Our results show that in-person academic detailing around outpatient antimicrobial selection was associated with a decrease in outpatient antimicrobial prescriptions in a group of high-prescribing resident physicians.