Evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine implementation in a large safety net health system.

Objectives: To evaluate rapid COVID-19 vaccine clinic implementation from January-April 2021 in the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services (LACDHS), the second-largest US safety net health system. During initial vaccine clinic implementation, LACDHS vaccinated 59,898 outpatients, 69% of whom were Latinx (exceeding the LA County Latinx population of 46%). LACDHS is a unique safety net setting to evaluate rapid vaccine implementation due to system size, geographic breadth, language/racial/ethnic diversity, limited health staffing resources, and socioeconomic complexity of patients. Methods: Implementation factors were assessed through semi-structured interviews of staff from all twelve LACDHS vaccine clinics from August-November 2021 using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and themes analyzed using rapid qualitative analysis. Results: Of 40 potential participants, 25 health professionals completed an interview (27% clinical providers/medical directors, 23% pharmacist, 15% nursing staff, and 35% other). Qualitative analysis of participant interviews yielded ten narrative themes. Implementation facilitators included bidirectional communication between system leadership and clinics, multidisciplinary leadership and operations teams, expanded use of standing orders, teamwork culture, use of active and passive communication structures, and development of patient-centered engagement strategies. Barriers to implementation included vaccine scarcity, underestimation of resources needed for patient outreach, and numerous process challenges encountered. Conclusion: Previous studies focused on robust advance planning as a facilitator and understaffing and high staff turnover as barriers to implementation in safety net health systems. This study found facilitators that can mitigate lack of advance planning and staffing challenges present during public health emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The ten identified themes may inform future implementations in safety net health systems.

Leveraging Antimicrobial Stewardship in the Emergency Department to Improve the Quality of Urinary Tract Infection Management and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The complex and fast-paced emergency department (ED) practice setting presents unique challenges that demand a tailored approach to antimicrobial stewardship. In this article, we describe the strategies applied by 1 institution's antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) that were successful in improving prescribing practices and outcomes for urinary tract infection (UTI) in the ED. METHODS: Core strategies included pre-implementation research characterizing the patient population, antimicrobial resistance patterns, prescribing behavior, and morbidity related to infection; collaboration across multiple disciplines; development and implementation of a UTI treatment algorithm; education to increase awareness of the algorithm and the background and rationale supporting it; audit and feedback; and early evaluation of post-implementation outcomes. RESULTS: We observed a rapid change in prescribing post-implementation with increased empiric nitrofurantoin use and reduced cephalosporin use (P < .05). Our elevation of nitrofurantoin to firstline status was supported by our post-implementation analysis showing that its use was independently associated with reduced 30-day return visits (adjusted odds ratio, 0.547; 95% confidence interval, 0.312-0.960). Furthermore, despite a shift to a higher risk population and a corresponding decrease in antimicrobial susceptibility rates post-implementation, the preferential use of nitrofurantoin did not result in higher bug-drug mismatches while 30-day return visits to the ED remained stable. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that an outcomes-based ASP can impart meaningful change to knowledge and attitudes affecting prescribing practices in the ED. The success of our program may be used by other institutions as support for ASP expansion to the ED.

Risk factors for early return visits to the emergency department in patients with urinary tract infection.

BACKGROUND: Optimal management of urinary tract infections (UTIs) in the emergency department (ED) is challenging due to high patient turnover, decreased continuity of care, and treatment decisions made in the absence of microbiologic data. We sought to identify risk factors for return visits in ED patients treated for UTI. METHODS: A random sample of 350 adult ED patients with UTI by ICD 9/10 codes was selected for review. Relevant data was extracted from medical charts and compared between patients with and without ED return visits within 30days (ERVs). RESULTS: We identified 51 patients (15%) with 59 ERVs, of whom 6% returned within 72h. Nearly half of ERVs (47%) were UTI-related and 33% of ERV patients required hospitalization. ERVs were significantly more likely (P<0.05) in patients with the following: age≥65years; pregnancy; skilled nursing facility residence; dementia; psychiatric disorder; obstructive uropathy; healthcare exposure; temperature≥38 °C heart rate>100; and bacteremia. Escherichia coli was the most common uropathogen (70%) and susceptibility rates to most oral antibiotics were below 80% in both groups except nitrofurantoin (99% susceptible). Cephalexin was the most frequently prescribed antibiotic (51% vs. 44%; P=0.32). Cephalexin bug-drug mismatches were more common in ERV patients (41% vs. 15%; P=0.02). Culture follow-up occurred less frequently in ERV patients (75% vs. 100%; P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: ERV in UTI patients may be minimized by using ED-source specific antibiogram data to guide empiric treatment decisions and by targeting at-risk patients for post-discharge follow-up.