An Update From the National Healthcare Safety Network on Hospital Antibiotic Stewardship Programs in the United States, 2014-2021.

Background: In 2014, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released the Core Elements of Hospital Antibiotic Stewardship Programs (ASPs) and began monitoring uptake through the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) Annual Hospital Survey. In 2019, CDC updated the Core Elements and in 2022 released the Priorities for Hospital Core Element Implementation. We describe Core Element uptake from 2014 to 2021, provide a snapshot of specific ASP practices in acute care hospitals in 2021, and describe how we plan to monitor stewardship moving forward. Methods: We used the NHSN Annual Hospital Survey to summarize facility demographics and ASP practices and to monitor uptake of Core Elements. Questions have been updated over time, so not all data could be compared across years. Results: Uptake of all 7 Core Elements increased from 41% in 2014 to 95% in 2021. Uptake of all 6 Priority Elements was 10% in 2021, though 46% of hospitals met 4 or 5 of the possible 6 elements. Antibiotic stewardship was specifically listed in a contract or job description for about 60% of program leaders. The percentage of physician-pharmacist co-led programs rose from 23% to 64%. Seventy-six percent of hospitals reported implementing audit with feedback interventions. Conclusions: With nearly all acute care hospitals reporting uptake of the 7 Core Elements in 2021, and with more evidence for which ASP practices are most effective, the Priorities for Hospital Core Element Implementation were released in 2022 to help enhance the quality and impact of existing ASPs.

Lessons learned for public health workforce development: An evaluation of the centers for disease control and prevention's laboratory leadership service fellowship.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention launched the Laboratory Leadership Service (LLS) Fellowship Program in July 2015 to develop public health laboratory (PHL) leaders who will improve PHL quality and safety. This article describes a retrospective, summative evaluation to determine the extent to which LLS has met its short-term goals for PHL workforce development. The evaluation relied on existing data from routine LLS data collection and reporting, supplemented with a new alumni survey. The purpose of the design was threefold: 1) to reduce data collection burden on program staff and participants, 2) to assess the value and limits of routine fellowship data for comprehensive public health workforce development program evaluation, and 3) to identify ways to improve LLS's routine data collections for program evaluation. We used descriptive statistics, qualitative analysis, and participatory methods (i.e., a data party) to analyze and interpret data. Results show LLS short-term outcome achievement and highlight opportunities for program improvement, particularly related to the design of certain training requirements and for future evaluations. Overall, the evaluation contributes to lessons learned for PHL workforce development efforts, including how routine data collections can contribute to comprehensive public health workforce development evaluations.

Strategic Development of the Public Health Workforce: A Unified Logic Model for a Multifaceted Program at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

CONTEXT: Public health has a responsibility to ensure the ability of its workforce to deliver essential services, including mastering the core public health competencies. PROGRAM: The Division of Scientific Education and Professional Development (DSEPD) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a mission to improve health outcomes through a competent, sustainable, and empowered public health workforce. The DSEPD programs offer fellowships and other training opportunities, develop and disseminate quality public health training, and advance public health workforce development science. EVALUATION: The DSEPD developed a unified division logic model to describe the combined activities and intended outcomes of all DSEPD programs and their intended contribution to a robust public health workforce and to support ongoing program planning and evaluation. The logic model has 4 streams of work that include (1) producing and disseminating quality learning products; (2) implementing and managing fellowship programs that support learning; (3) providing public health service through fellows; and (4) advancing workforce development science through collaboration with other public health leaders.The underlying program theory is that a robust workforce has sufficient workforce, organizational, and systems capacity to deliver public health essential services and, therefore, to protect the public's health. Three scientific theories support the program theory: the quality of learning; the accepted practice of competency-based programs and the service-learning model; and use of evidence-guided decision making in workforce development programs. DISCUSSION: A unified division logic model allows DSEPD to describe its combined approaches to workforce development as a coherent portfolio with well-defined goals and measureable outcomes. The logic model effectively communicates the relationship among division programs, their shared outcomes, and their combined contributions to developing and maintaining a robust public health workforce. A unified logic model can serve as effective frame of reference for division evaluation and as evidence in public health workforce development science.

An exploratory review of the literature evaluating nonclinical fellowship programs.

Fellowship programs offer career development opportunities, provide experiential training, and can be used to recruit personnel to address specific challenges facing the public health workforce. Given the potential influence fellowships have on the future public health workforce, it is important to understand and articulate the results of such programs and to identify areas of improvement to meet current workforce needs. The purpose of this literature review was to identify common practices used to evaluate nonclinical fellowship programs. After a search of the internet and selected databases, we screened titles and abstracts using predetermined selection criteria. We then conducted a detailed review of selected papers to extract information about program characteristics (program description, sector, and program length) and evaluation characteristics (primary evaluation type, framework for evaluation, data collection methods, and respondent populations) from 33 papers. We found a limited number of published papers on the evaluation of nonclinical fellowship programs, and most focused on outcomes associated with fellows or alumni. The most useful papers for our purposes clearly described the evaluation framework that guided the evaluation.