English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background The incidence of invasive fungal infections (IFI) and antifungal utilization is increasing in many healthcare settings. Little is known regarding antifungal stewardship strategies within broader antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs). This survey aimed to identify the use of antifungal stewardship at a diverse range of hospitals. Methods A cross-sectional electronic survey of the SHEA Research Network (SRN) was completed August–September 2018 by a physician or pharmacist ASP leader. The SRN is a consortium of &gt;100 hospitals participating in multicenter healthcare epidemiology research projects. Survey questions pertained to various aspects of antifungal stewardship, including audit and feedback, laboratory testing, and surveillance. Chi-square tested associations between ASP and hospital characteristics and use of antifungal stewardship strategies. Results 45/111 (41%) facilities responded, including 10 international sites. Most facilities are academic medical centers (64.6%) and care for stem cell (73.3%) and solid-organ transplant (80.0%) patients. Most facilities have large, well established ASPs (60.0% &gt; 5 members; 68.9% duration ≥6 years). 43 (95.6%) facilities use antifungal stewardship strategies in their ASP; most commonly prospective audit and feedback (33/43, 73.3%) performed by a pharmacist (23/33, 71.4%). Only half of ASPs (51.1%) create guidelines for IFI management. Most (71.1%) facilities offer rapid laboratory tests to diagnose IFI, but availability of PCR for fungal speciation and antifungal susceptibility testing varies (Figure 1). 29 ASPs (64.4%) perform surveillance of antifungal utilization, but only 9 (31.0%) report data to CDC’s National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN). ASP size, ASP duration, and presence of transplant populations were not associated with a higher likelihood of using antifungal stewardship strategies (P &gt; 0.05 for all). Conclusion Use of antifungal stewardship strategies is high at SRN hospitals, but mainly involves audit and feedback. ASPs should be encouraged to disseminate guidelines for IFI management, to promote access to laboratory-based tests for rapid and accurate IFI diagnosis, and to perform surveillance for antifungal utilization with data reporting to NHSN. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

1980. Variability in Antifungal Stewardship Strategies Among Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) Research Network Facilities