133. A Review of Antimicrobial Formularies at Rural Hospitals: Stewardship Opportunities Abound

Background Management of a hospital’s antimicrobial formulary is an important aspect of antimicrobial stewardship and cost containment strategies. Ensuring that essential medications for clinical care are available and excluding therapeutic duplicates and unnecessary antimicrobials is time and resource intensive. Comparisons of antimicrobial formularies across multiple rural hospitals have not been evaluated in the literature. We hypothesized that a comprehensive formulary evaluation would reveal important opportunities for antimicrobial stewardship efforts and could help smaller hospitals optimize available medications. Methods The University of Washington Tele-Antimicrobial Stewardship Program (UW-TASP) is comprised of 68 hospitals of varying sizes, most of which are rural and critical access, in Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Idaho, and Utah. We surveyed UW-TASP participating hospitals and other networked rural hospitals in multiple Western states using REDCap, a HIPAA-compliant, electronic data management program. Respondents reported which antimicrobials are on their hospital formulary as well as basic information about hospital size and inpatient units. Data were reviewed by a panel of infectious diseases trained physicians and pharmacists at UW-TASP. Results Surveys from 49 hospitals were received; two were excluded from the data analysis (Table 1) – one submission was incomplete, and one was a large inpatient psychiatric hospital. Select antimicrobials and proportion of hospitals carrying these agents is shown in Table 2. Several antimicrobials are on the formulary at all hospitals, regardless of size. In some critical access hospitals (< 25 beds), empiric first-line bacterial meningitis and viral encephalitis coverage (Table 3) was lacking. Six hospitals (12.7%) lacked ampicillin for Listeria coverage and only one had a suitable alternative agent (meropenem). Seven hospitals (14.9%) lacked intravenous acyclovir, although three had oral valacyclovir. Formulary inclusion of agents for multi-drug resistant organisms was rare. Conclusion In critical access hospitals in the Western USA, lack of essential empiric antimicrobials may be more of a concern than inclusion of agents with unnecessarily broad spectra. Disclosures Chloe Bryson-Cahn, MD, Alaska Airlines (Other Financial or Material Support, Co-Medical Director, position is through the University of Washington)

954. Resources Needed by Critical Access Hospitals to Address Identified Infection Prevention and Control Program Gaps

Background Critical Access Hospitals (CAH) may face challenges with limited resources in their infection prevention and control (IPC) program. As part of the Project Firstline collaborative, the University of Nebraska Medical Center and its clinical partner Nebraska Medicine sought to identify needs and develop resources to mitigate IPC program gaps in small and rural hospitals, including CAHs. Since, little is known about the resources needed by CAHs to strengthen their IPC program, a needs assessment survey was deployed to Federal Emergency Management Agency Region VII CAHs. Methods A 49-question Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) survey was distributed via email to infection preventionists in Region VII CAHs. The survey had 4 sections with questions focused on IPC program infrastructure, competency-based training, audit and feedback, and identification and isolation of high-risk pathogens/serious communicable diseases. An IPC practice score was assigned to each CAH by totaling “yes” responses. A “no” or “not sure” response was considered an IPC gap. Respondents who selected “no” were asked to identify resources that would assist in mitigating identified gaps. Descriptive analyses evaluated frequency of gaps and most cited resources. Welch t-test was used to study differences in IPC practice score between states. Results 50 CAHs (33 in NE, 16 in IA and 1 in KS) and 1 small NE hospital (not licensed as CAH but included in the analyses as CAH) participated in the survey. Majority (n=38) responded to all sections with IPC scores ranging from 13 to 48. There was no significant difference between IPC practice scores of CAHs in NE and IA (average score 33 vs 36; p = 0.38). Specific IPC practice gaps present in > 50% of CAHs were related to audit and feedback practices (Table 1). Additional gaps included lack of drug diversion program, absence of input from IPC team prior to purchasing equipment and failure to conduct risk assessment for the laboratory. Most CAHs cited a standardized audit tool and staff training materials as much needed resources (Table 1). Table 1. Needs/Resources for the identified Infection Prevention and Control Gaps. Conclusion Major IPC gaps exist in CAHs with many of them related to implementing audit and feedback practices that are an essential component of a successful IPC program. Focus should be directed on developing resources to mitigate identified IPC gaps. Disclosures M. Salman Ashraf, MBBS, Merck & Co. Inc (Grant/Research Support, I have recieved grant funding for an investigator initiated research project from Merck & Con. Inc. However, I do not see any direct conflict of interest related to the submitted abstract)

A qualitative assessment of barriers and facilitators associated with addressing social determinants of health among members of a health collaborative in the rural Midwest

Purpose Rural communities have unique economic and social structures, different disease burdens, and a more patchworked healthcare delivery system compared to urban counterparts. Yet research into addressing social determinants of health has focused on larger, urban, integrated health systems. Our study sought to understand capacities, facilitators, and barriers related to addressing social health needs across a collaborative of independent provider organizations in rural Northeastern Minnesota and Northwestern Wisconsin. Methods We conducted qualitative, semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of 37 key informants from collaborative members including 4 stand-alone critical access hospitals, 3 critical access hospitals affiliated with primary care, 1 multi-clinic system, and 1 integrated regional health system. Findings Barriers were abundant and occurred at the organizational, community and policy levels. Rural providers described a lack of financial, labor, Internet, and community-based social services resources, a limited capacity to partner with other organizations, and workflows that were less than optimal for addressing SDOH. State Medicaid and other payer policies posed challenges that made it more difficult to use available resources, as did misaligned incentives between partners. While specific payer programs and organizational innovations helped facilitate their work, nothing was systemic. Relationships within the collaborative that allowed sharing of innovations and information were helpful, as was the role leadership played in promoting value-based care. Conclusions Policy change is needed to support rural providers in this work. Collaboration among rural health systems should be fostered to develop common protocols, promote value-based care, and offer economies of scale to leverage value-based payment. States can help align incentives and performance metrics across rural health care entities, engage payers in promoting value-based care, and bolster social service capacity.