Search

Background: Veterans Health Administration (VHA) community living centers (CLCs) provide postacute and long-term care. CLC veterans visit myriad locations outside their rooms (eg, rehabilitation, dialysis). Pathogen transmission during out-of-room visits is unknown. Methods: We recruited newly admitted veterans at 3 CLCs. After obtaining informed consent, we cultured nares, groin, hands, and 7 surfaces in the patient rooms. We accompanied veterans to up to 5 out-of-room visits and cultured patients’ hands and surfaces they touched. We tested for multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE), and quinolone, carbapenem, and/or ceftazidime-resistant gram-negative bacteria (R-GNB). We defined transmission as a positive culture following an initial negative culture during the same visit. Results: We enrolled 137 veterans (median follow-up, 29 days; mean, 5.9 visits); 97% were postacute patients. We conducted 539 patient-room sampling visits (mean, 3.9 per veteran; 5,490 swabs) and accompanied 97 veterans to 266 out-of-room sampling visits (mean, 2.7 per veteran; 2,360 swabs). Of 137 patients, 47 (35%) were colonized with an MDRO at enrollment and 74 (58%) of 128 patients were colonized on any follow-up patient-room visits. Of 133 patients, 55 (41%) acquired a new MDRO, most often VRE (31 of 97, 32%). In patient rooms, toilet seats [114 (21%) of 538], curtains [101 (19%) of 530] and bedrails [98 (18%) of 539] were most frequently contaminated. Among 266 out-of-room visits, 17% had surfaces contaminated with MDROs, most commonly involving dialysis [4 (31%) of 13], radiology [2 (25%) of 8], and rehabilitation therapy [29 (18%) of 159] (Fig. 1).Transmission of MDROs during out-of-room visits was common and occurred in 18% of visits with 8% (9 MRSA and 12 VRE) acquiring a new MDRO on their hands and 12% (9 MRSA and 23 VRE) of MDRO transmission occurring from hands to a surface that the patient touched (Fig. 1). In 18 (58%) of 31 cases, the organism transmitted to a surface was on patient hands at the start of the visit. Transmission was most common during visits to dialysis (3 to patients and 2 to surfaces), radiology (1 to a patient and 2 to surfaces), and rehabilitation therapy (13 to patients and 21 to surfaces) (Fig. 2). Conclusions: New MDRO acquisition during VHA CLC stay was common, and nearly one-fifth of out-of-room visits resulted in MDRO transmission. Our analyses suggest that veterans’ hands may shed MDROs (MRSA and VRE) to surfaces. Interventions to reduce MDRO transmission during visits for rehabilitation, dialysis, and other therapies are needed.

This article explores the utility of implementation science (IS) as a method to promote the effective uptake of antimicrobial stewardship processes. Elements of IS can be readily incorporated into QI work and used as a platform to extend stewardship reach. As stewards are stretched to do more, IS can be a potential vehicle to ensure that our collective work is impactful, sustainable, and contributes more broadly to clinically relevant improvements.

Background: Outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy (OPAT) involves the administration of intravenous antimicrobial therapy outside the hospital. The literature suggests that inpatient providers are often unaware of OPAT programs and may not engage this multidisciplinary group in a timely fashion, leading to potentially inappropriate OPAT use. However, few studies have directly addressed this issue. We characterized current practices for coordinating OPAT and assessed provider understanding of OPAT services. We also conducted an exploratory analysis of placement of a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) consultation prior to an infectious disease (ID) consultation as a proxy for potentially avoidable OPAT use. Methods: This study was conducted between September and December 2021 at the Ann Arbor VA Healthcare System. All charts (n = 212) in which a consultation for a PICC was placed between January and September 2021 were reviewed, including free-text data entered by patient teams and inpatient progress notes in the days leading up to and following PICC consultation. Additionally, inpatient providers were surveyed using an online format regarding knowledge, utilization, and perceptions of OPAT. Results: Of the 212 charts reviewed, 108 patient encounters resulted in PICC placement; 80 (74.1%) were placed for the indication of home IV antibiotics. Of these, 3 (4.0%) had the PICC consult placed prior to the ID consultation. Of the 104 PICC consultations that were cancelled, 9 (8.7%) were cancelled because the ID staff did not recommend home IV antibiotics. Other reasons for cancellation included alternative device placement, duplicate order, referral to interventional radiology, failure to meet criteria, or unsuccessful placement. Of the 285 inpatient providers sent the electronic survey, 121 (46.9%) completed at least some portion. Overall, 17 respondents (14.0%) were familiar with the acronym OPAT; however, only 10 were able to expand the acronym correctly. Of the 118 respondents asked about their familiarity with the OPAT program at the local institution, 98 (83.1%) were not familiar at all or were only slightly familiar with the program. In contrast, 7 respondents (6.0%) were very or extremely familiar with the OPAT program. Conclusions: Further education and structural interventions are necessary to improve inpatient providers’ awareness and early engagement of local OPAT programs to ensure appropriate OPAT use. An educational intervention with an informative flowchart diagramming the steps for engaging the OPAT team could raise awareness and improve engagement when potential OPAT needs are identified (Fig. 1).