Search

ObjectiveTo examine the perspectives of caregivers that are not part of the antibiotic stewardship program (ASP) leadership team (eg, physicians, nurses, and clinical pharmacists), but who interact with ASPs in their role as frontline healthcare workers.DesignQualitative semistructured interviews.SettingThe study was conducted in 2 large national healthcare systems including 7 hospitals in the Veterans' Health Administration and 4 hospitals in Intermountain Healthcare.ParticipantsWe interviewed 157 participants. The current analysis includes 123 nonsteward clinicians: 47 physicians, 26 pharmacists, 29 nurses, and 21 hospital leaders.MethodsInterviewers utilized a semistructured interview guide based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), which was tailored to the participant's role in the hospital as it related to ASPs. Qualitative analysis was conducted using a codebook based on the CFIR.ResultsWe identified 4 primary perspectives regarding ASPs. (1) Non-ASP pharmacists considered antibiotic stewardship activities to be a high priority despite the added burden to work duties: (2) Nurses acknowledged limited understanding of ASP activities or involvement with these programs; (3) Physicians criticized ASPs for their restrictions on clinical autonomy and questioned the ability of antibiotic stewards to make recommendations without the full clinical picture; And (4) hospital leaders expressed support for ASPs and recognized the unique challenges faced by non-ASP clinical staff.ConclusionFurther understanding these differing perspectives of ASP implementation will inform possible ways to improve ASP implementation across clinical roles.

ObjectiveTo examine how individual steward characteristics (eg, steward role, sex, and specialized training) are associated with their views of antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) implementation at their institution.DesignDescriptive survey from a mixed-methods study.SettingTwo large national healthcare systems; the Veterans' Health Administration (VA) (n = 134 hospitals) and Intermountain Healthcare (IHC; n = 20 hospitals).ParticipantsWe sent the survey to 329 antibiotic stewards serving in 154 hospitals; 152 were physicians and 177 were pharmacists. In total, 118 pharmacists and 64 physicians from 126 hospitals responded.MethodsThe survey was grounded in constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, and it assessed stewards' views on the development and implementation of antibiotic stewardship programs (ASPs) at their institutions We then examined differences in stewards' views by demographic factors.ResultsRegardless of individual factors, stewards agreed that the ASP added value to their institution and was advantageous to patient care. Stewards also reported high levels of collegiality and self-efficacy. Stewards who had specialized training or those volunteered for the role were less likely to think that the ASP was implemented due to a mandate. Similarly volunteers and those with specialized training felt that they had authority in the antibiotic decisions made in their facility.ConclusionsGiven the importance of ASPs, it may be beneficial for healthcare institutions to recruit and train individuals with a true interest in stewardship.

BackgroundAntibiotic stewardship programs (ASPs) are required at every hospital regardless of size. We conducted a qualitative study across different hospital settings to examine perspectives of physician and pharmacist stewards about the dynamics within their team and contextual factors that facilitate the success of their programs.MethodsSemistructured interviews were conducted in March-November 2018 with 46 ASP stewards, 30 pharmacists, and 16 physicians, from 39 hospitals within 2 large hospital systems.ResultsWe identified 5 major themes: antibiotic stewards were enthusiastic about their role, committed to the goals of stewardship for their patients and as a public-health imperative, and energized by successful interventions; responsibilities of pharmacist and physician stewards are markedly different, and pharmacy stewards performed the majority of the day-to-day stewardship work; collaborative teamwork is important to improving care, the pharmacists and physicians supported each other, and pharmacists believed that having a strong physician leader was essential; provider engagement strategies are a critical component of stewardship, and recommendations must be communicated in a collegial manner that did not judge the provider competence, preferably through face-to-face interactions; and hospital leadership support for ASP goals and for protected time for ASP activities is critical for success.ConclusionsThe physician-pharmacist team is essential for ASPs; most have pharmacists leading and performing day-to-day activities with physician support. Collaborative, persuasive approaches for ASP interventions were the norm. Stewards were careful not to criticize or judge inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. Further research should examine whether this persuasive approach undercuts provider appreciation of stewardship as a public health mandate.

BACKGROUND:It is challenging to conduct and quickly disseminate findings from in-depth qualitative analyses, which can impede timely implementation of interventions because of its time-consuming methods. To better understand tradeoffs between the need for actionable results and scientific rigor, we present our method for conducting a framework-guided rapid analysis (RA) and a comparison of these findings to an in-depth analysis of interview transcripts. METHODS:Set within the context of an evaluation of a successful academic detailing (AD) program for opioid prescribing in the Veterans Health Administration, we developed interview guides informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and interviewed 10 academic detailers (clinical pharmacists) and 20 primary care providers to elicit detail about successful features of the program. For the RA, verbatim transcripts were summarized using a structured template (based on CFIR); summaries were subsequently consolidated into matrices by participant type to identify aspects of the program that worked well and ways to facilitate implementation elsewhere. For comparison purposes, we later conducted an in-depth analysis of the transcripts. We described our RA approach and qualitatively compared the RA and deductive in-depth analysis with respect to consistency of themes and resource intensity. RESULTS:Integrating the CFIR throughout the RA and in-depth analysis was helpful for providing structure and consistency across both analyses. Findings from the two analyses were consistent. The most frequently coded constructs from the in-depth analysis aligned well with themes from the RA, and the latter methods were sufficient and appropriate for addressing the primary evaluation goals. Our approach to RA was less resource-intensive than the in-depth analysis, allowing for timely dissemination of findings to our operations partner that could be integrated into ongoing implementation. CONCLUSIONS:In-depth analyses can be resource-intensive. If consistent with project needs (e.g., to quickly produce information to inform ongoing implementation or to comply with a policy mandate), it is reasonable to consider using RA, especially when faced with resource constraints. Our RA provided valid findings in a short timeframe, enabling identification of actionable suggestions for our operations partner.

BackgroundThe Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) is an effective lifestyle intervention to reduce incidence of type 2 diabetes. However, there are gaps in knowledge about how to implement DPP. The aim of this study was to evaluate implementation of DPP via assessment of a clinical demonstration in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).MethodsA 12-month pragmatic clinical trial compared weight outcomes between the Veterans Affairs Diabetes Prevention Program (VA-DPP) and the usual care MOVE!® weight management program (MOVE!). Eligible participants had a body mass index (BMI) ≥30 kg/m2 (or BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 with one obesity-related condition), prediabetes (glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) 5.7-6.5% or fasting plasma glucose (FPG) 100-125 mg/dL), lived within 60 min of their VA site, and had not participated in a weight management program within the last year. Established evaluation and implementation frameworks were used to guide the implementation evaluation. Implementation barriers and facilitators, delivery fidelity, participant satisfaction, and implementation costs were assessed. Using micro-costing methods, costs for assessment of eligibility and scheduling and maintaining adherence per participant, as well as cost of delivery per session, were also assessed.ResultsSeveral barriers and facilitators to Reach, Adoption, Implementation, Effectiveness and Maintenance were identified; barriers related to Reach were the largest challenge encountered by site teams. Fidelity was higher for VA-DPP delivery compared to MOVE! for five of seven domains assessed. Participant satisfaction was high in both programs, but higher in VA-DPP for most items. Based on micro-costing methods, cost of assessment for eligibility was $68/individual assessed, cost of scheduling and maintaining adherence was $328/participant, and cost of delivery was $101/session.ConclusionsMulti-faceted strategies are needed to reach targeted participants and successfully implement DPP. Costs for assessing patients for eligibility need to be carefully considered while still maximizing reach to the targeted population.

BackgroundThe Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) study showed that lifestyle intervention resulted in a 58% reduction in incidence of type 2 diabetes among individuals with prediabetes. Additional large randomized controlled trials have confirmed these results, and long-term follow-up has shown sustained benefit 10-20 years after the interventions ended. Diabetes is a common and costly disease, especially among Veterans, and despite strong evidence supporting the feasibility of type 2 diabetes prevention, the DPP has not been widely implemented. The first aim of this study will evaluate implementation of the Veterans Affairs (VA) DPP in three VA medical centers. The second aim will assess weight and hemoglobin A1c (A1c) outcomes, and the third aim will determine the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of implementation of the VA DPP from a health system perspective.Methods/designThis partnered multi-site non-randomized systematic assignment study will use a highly pragmatic hybrid effectiveness-implementation type III mixed methods study design. The implementation and administration of the VA DPP will be funded by clinical operations while the evaluation of the VA DPP will be funded by research grants. Seven hundred twenty eligible Veterans will be systematically assigned to the VA DPP clinical demonstration or the usual care VA MOVE!® weight management program. A multi-phase formative evaluation of the VA DPP implementation will be conducted. A theoretical program change model will be used to guide the implementation process and assess applicability and feasibility of the DPP for VA. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) will be used to guide qualitative data collection, analysis, and interpretation of barriers and facilitators to implementation. The RE-AIM framework will be used to assess Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance of the VA DPP. Twelve-month weight and A1c change will be evaluated for the VA DPP compared to the VA MOVE!ProgramMediation analyses will be conducted to identify whether program design differences impact outcomes.DiscussionFindings from this pragmatic evaluation will be highly applicable to practitioners who are tasked with implementing the DPP in clinical settings. In addition, findings will determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the VA DPP in the Veteran population.